SARMUKH SINGH Vs. HAZARI LAL MARWAH AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been filed by the landlord under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act and is directed against the appellate order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 28th August, 1968, by which he reversed the order of the Additional Controller dated 30th September, 1967 and finally dismissed the petition of the landlord appellant for eviction.

(2.) The material facts of the case briefly stated are that the appellant before me is the owner of the property in dispute which he purchased from the Rehabilitation Department of the Government under a sale certificate dated 18th December, 1961, which became effective from 21st December, 1959 and the landlord instituted the present petition for eviction on 22nd January, 1965 for eviction of the respondent from the premises in dispute which had been let out to the respondent by the Department of the Custodian on a rent of Rs 25 per month, which rent I am informed at the bar has now been increased to Rs. 125 per month which has been determined to be the standard rent of the premises under the Rent Control Act and the tenant has been paying the said amount of rent since then. The reasons for seeking eviction advanced by the appellant were that he was occupying the premises allotted by the Rehabilitation Department which were insufficient for the residence of himself and the members of his family. It has been established on the record that his family consists of himself, his wife, two sons and one daughters, out of whom one son is employed in some industrial concern near about Delhi and the accommodation in possession of the landlord in the aforementioned allotted premises is three rooms, the measurements of which are not known on the record. The plea of the landlord prevailed with the trial court which passed an order for eviction, while on appeal the learned Tribunal reversed the findings and the decision of the Additional Controller and he held that his claim for eviction was mala fide and the grounds mentioned in clause (3) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Rent Control Act had not been established. The landlord appellant has come up in second appeal to this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the landlord has relied upon three authorities of this Court Lalit Kumar Vijay v. Saroj Kumari, 1969 RCR(Rent) 555, Shri Om Parkash Singal v. Shri Roshan Lal Khanna, 1969 RCR(Rent) 391 and Shri Krishna Kumar and another v. Mrs. Vimla Saigal, 1969 RCR(Rent) 236and the counsel has contended that the findings of the appellate Court are not sustainable in law and he has committed a grave and substantial error in rejecting the claim of the appellant for eviction. The learned counsel has further urged that the premises occupied by the landlord consists only of two rooms and a store and a kitchen as per letter Exhibit R.W. 6/2 and that the members of his family consist of at least five persons and the same was not sufficient for his accommodation and moreover the premises which had been allotted to him were not owned by him and he was entitled to entertain a desire to shift to him own property. The learned counsel has also assailed the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal from the fact that the appellant who owned one house, sold it away sometime in the year 1962 for a sum of Rs. 3,200. The counsel urges that the sale had been made to pay off the debts and at all events even if the payment f the debts had not been proved, the mere fact of the sale of the said property two or three years before the institution of the petition for eviction did not militate against the bonafide of the claim of the appellant landlord for eviction.