SMT. RAM KALI Vs. VIJAY GOPAL SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, Smt. Ram Kali, is the owner of a house in Gandhi Nagar Delhi. Respondent Vijay Gopal Srivastava, is a tenant under her in one room with one kitchen in the said house, at a rent of Rs. 16/- per month. On Sept. 3, 1966, the appellant filed an application under proviso (e) to section 14(l) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, herein called 'the Act', for the respondent's eviction on the ground that the premises were required bonafide by her for occupation as a residence for herself and members of her family dependent on her and that she had no other suitable residential accommodation. She at present, lives in one room in a rented premises, which is alleged to have been damaged and rendered unfit for residence. The appellant further stated that although she had no son, she had a married daughter whose husband, Babu Lal and his four to five children have been residing with her in the rented accommodation. The same was, therefore, insufficient for her. The respondent-tenant stated in reply that the appellant had sufficient suitable accommodation with her and her alleged requirements of the premises in dispute were not bonafide. He also stated that she had no family member dependent on her.

(2.) The Additional Controller took into consideration the appellant's plea that it was no longer possible for her to stay in her rented accommodation as even the walls of the said 'kothri' had given way and she had to put there jute curtains instead. He found the requirements of the appellant to be genuine. In order for the recovery of possession was accordingly passed in favour of the appellant against the respondent. In appeal, the learned Rent Control Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellant has failed to establish that her son-in-law and her daughter were living with her. It was noticed that the appellant was living in the rented small room since the last about 20 years. The premises in dispute were found to have been let to the respondent about 11 years ago. Two of the tenants were inducted seven or eight years ago, in certain of her portions of the premises. Another tenant, who is said to be a son-in-law of her daughter, was inducted in a room occupied by him two and a half years ago. One Raj Kumar, who was living as a tenant in another room in the Gandhi Nagar house had vacated that room about six months ago. The Tribunal, therefore, found that she had been letting out portions of the property to tenants off and on and had not cared to occupy the same herself. The Tribunal further noticed that the appellant, had asked in the respondent in her notice dated Sept. 12, 1963 to vacate on the ground of her bonafide requirements. But in her notice, exhibit R. X. dated Feb. 15, 1965 she made a demand for payment of arrears of rent only; and no mention was made of her bonafide personal requirements. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petition brought by the appellant was mala fide and perhaps the result of the malice and grudge nursed by her against the respondent on account of his having asked her to effect the repairs of the premises in dispute and his having refused to increase the rent. Under these circumstances, it accepted the appeal and dismissed the appellant's application for eviction with costs throughout. It is against the said order of the learned Rent Control Tribunal that the appellant has come up in second appeal to this court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent at the outset submitted that the scope for interference by this court with the judgment of the Rent Control Tribunal was extremely limited, as no substantial question of law was involved. This court would not go into the findings of fact and reappraise to the evidence. He relied on Vinod Kumar Vs. Ajit Singh Ahluwalia 1969 RCR 181, where Hegde J. speaking for the Supreme Court observed; "it was not competent the court (High Court) to reassess the evidence adduced in the case. Though the learned Judge (of the High Court) purported to go into the question whether the finding of the Tribunal that the first respondent had sublet a part of the premises leased is supported by any evidence, it is clear from his judgment that the reassessed evidence does not appear to have proceeded in proper lines." The learned counsel submitted that the bonafide requirement was a question of fact; and the finding of the Tribunal was final in the matter and this court will not interfere therein in second appeal.