HARI NARAIN Vs. GOPAL SOHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is landlord's second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act against the order of Rent Control Tribunal up-holding the order of the Addition Rent Controller dismissing the appellants petition for eviction.

(2.) The appellants are the owners of the property in dispute and bad let out H. NO' 2737, Nal Sarak, Delhi to respondents, who happen to be their near relations, for residential purposes. The appellants filed an application for eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent and for bonafide personal requirements of the appellants under Sections 14 (l)(a) and (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

(3.) The respondents opposed the application on the ground that the accommodation with the appellants was sufficient for their needs and the application was made malafide. The arrears of rent, however, were duly deposited. The Additional Rent Controller found that even if the portion of the ground-floor in possession of the appellants be discarded as being unfit for habitation, the accommodation on the first floor and the roof is quite sufficient to meet the requirements of the appellants since the total number of the family members for whom the accommodation was needed was the same as it was a few years ago. He did not take Into account the requirements of Harbans Narain, appellant, since he was at that time serving in Nepal a* an over-seer. He thus found that the appellants have failed to prove the bonafides of their alleged requiremants. In appeal the learned Tribunal found that two of the rooms on the ground-floor could be used for residence and one of the rooifls on the first floor of the size of 28' x 7'.6" having been partitioned into two rooms, each of the sixe of 14' x 7'.6', constituted sufficient accommodation available for the appellants and 80 dismissed the appeal.