BASI DEVI Vs. FAQIR CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This seconappeal has been filed under section 39 of the Delhi Kent Control Act 59 of 1958 and is directed against the appellate order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 17th January, 1968 by which he allowed the appeal and reversed the order of the Additional Rem Controller dated 17th April 167 and finally rejected the petition of the landlord apellant for ejectment on the ground of bona fide personal necessity mentioned in clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (i) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent - Control Act, 1958

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that Smt. Basi Devi appellant before me, is the landlord and owner of property bearing No 1715, Gali Madrasa Mir Jamla, Lal Kuan, Delhi and the Respondent 1s a tenant in respect of the ground floor of the said premises. The appellant brought a petition for eviction against the respondent on the ground of non-payment of rent as well as bona fide personal necessity, being clauses (a) and (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act. ground metioned in clause (a was not pressed before the Controller as notice of demand had not been served and the same did not survive for decision. The parties however, proceeded to trial on the ground mentioned in clause (e) of the proviso to sut-section (1) of section 14 of the Act. In the petition for eviction, the appellant before me urged that she was the owner of the property which had been let out to the respondent for residential purposes by a previous landlord from whom the appellant had purchased the property and she stated that she and her husband were tenants in house No. 1299 Farash Khana, Delhi, and their landlord had obtained a decree for eviction against them and so they bona fide needed the premises for their personal residence.

(3.) The respondent before me in his written statement denied all the material allegations of the appellant constituting the grounds of eviction, including acquistion of the ownership of the property by the appellant and the residential letting purpose and her bona fide need. In particular he stated that the appellant before me had in possession of herself or her family house No.l279,.(ZeenatMahal) at Farash Khana, Delhi besides first floor of house No. 1712 and house 1716.