GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. HARSA SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is appeal has been filed by the tenant and is directed against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 23rd October 1968 by which he affirmed the judgment and order of the Rent Controller dated the 16th November, 1966 finally ordering eviction of the tenant from the premises in dispute on the ground of bonafide necessity specified in section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The facts of the case are that Harsa Singh and Sahej Singh landlords purchased a house bearing No. 4676 Shohra Kothi, Paharganj, Delhi, which was an evacuee property at sale by Public auction with effect from 14th of September, 1959 and tenants attorned to the landlords. On 3rd February, 1965, the landlords instituted 3 petitions for eviction on the ground of bonafide personal necessity against 3 different, tenants. One of the tenants vacated the premises in his occupation during the pendency of the proceedings before the Controller and we are not concerned with him. The other petition No. 110 of 1965 was filed against Harbans Lal tenant and the third petition 108 of 1965 was filed against Gurcharan 'Singh, appellant in this court, which has given rise to the present appeal.

(2.) The Controller found that the landlords needed the premises bonafide for personal necessity and he ordered eviction of both the tenants Gurcharan Singh as well as Harbans Lal in case Nos. 108 and 110 of 1965. Aggrieved by the said order the tenants filed appeal before the Tribunal. During the pendency of the appeal Harbans Lal vacated the premises in his possession and delivered the same to the landlords and his appeal became infructuous while the appeal of Gurcharan Singh (no. 89 of 1967) proceeded to hearing. During the pedency of the appeal the tenant moved an application under Order 41, Rule 27 and section 151 C. P. C. to the tribunal, inter alia, to take notice of the subsequent event that after the eviction of Harbans Lal from the premises in his occupation the need of the landlord had been completely fulfilled and it was not necessary to evict the appellant from the one room tenantment in his possession. This application was filed on 4th of January, 1968 and notice of it was given to the landlords and reply to the same was filed. The case was fixed for arguments but no final order was passed on the said application and the appeal of the tenant was dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal.

(3.) Mr. Mohan Singh appearing before me on behalf of the tenant-appellant strongly urges that the accommodation in dispute in possession of the appellant consisted of only one room and the landlords had already acquired possession of at least two rooms; one during the pendency of the proceedings before the Controller and another during the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal and as such their requirements had been Completely fulfiled and in view of the aforesaid subsequent event, this appeal be allowed and the eviction petition of the landlord be dismissed.