BOOTA RAM Vs. BALMUKAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed agaiiist the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated July 14, 1969, affirming the order of the Additional Rent Controller directing eviction of appellant Boota Ram.

(2.) Balmakand, the respoadent in this appeal purchased evacuee property No, 178/1798, situated at Hardhian Singh Road, ward No, XVI Krol Bagh, New Delhi by means of a sale-certificate granted in his favour by the Rehabilitation Deptt. on July 29, 1959 declaring him to be an owner with effect from November 4, 1957 On January 23, 1965, he filed an application under section 14(2) (h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act claiming eviction of the tenant appellant from t3.e premises in his occupation which formed a part of the above property on the ground that the tenant had built a residence in Kirti Nagar on plot No. 81, Block 'F' and that the tenant had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties even though after the purchase of the property by him (Balmukand) the respondent, Boota Ram who occupied the premises as an allottee of the Custodian had become his tenant by operation of Section 29 of Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 3954, hereinafter called the Displaced Persons Rehabilitation Act. Boota Ram contested this application. In the first written statement filed by him he did not raise the plea that a notice terminating his tenancy was necessary and the eviction application without notice was incompetent but on November 27, 1967, he prayed for permission to amend his written statement to raise this plea, The application was accepted by the learned Additional Rent Controller, On December 8, 1967, be thus filed an amended written statement incorporating this plea, The learned Additional kent Controller. after recording evidence came to the conclusion that Balmukand had succeeded in proving that Boota Ram had built a construction on plot No. F. 81, Kirti Nagar, as alleged by him and that by operation of Section 29 of the Displaced Persons Rehabilitation Act, Boot a Ram had become a statutory tenant and was not contractual tenant, With these findings, on May 28, 1968, he granted an order for recovery of possession against Boota Ram, Aggrieved from this Boota Ram went up in appeal. The learned Rent Control Tribunal by the impugned order concurred with the finding of fact arrived at by the learned Additional Rent Controller that Boota Ram had acquired another residence for himself, but disagreed with the view that he was a statutory tenant. He, however, held that no notice tor-determining his tenancy was required because the tenancy in his favour had been created before the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 came into force and in this view maintained the order of eviction and dismissed the appeal. This second appeal is directed against this order.

(3.) . Shri Ravinder Sethi, the learned counsel appearing for Boota Ram has urged that the learned Tribunal was in error in holding that the notice for eviction was not necessary. He placed strong reliance on the Division Bench decision of this court in Batto Mal v. Rameshwar Nath etc where it has been held that though the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, were made applicable to the Union Territory of Delhi with effect from 1st December, 1962, but even before that date the principle underlying it was applicable to Delhi and as a rule of justice, equity and good conscience a reasonable notice of about 15 days (even if it did not expire by the end of the month of tenancy) was essential to determine a monthly tenancy.