TILAK RAI SETHI Vs. RAM PIYARI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two appeals S.A.O. No. 86 and 133 of 1969 have been filed by the two tenants Rameshwar Dass and Tilak Raj under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act against the appellate order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 16th December 1968, by which the learned Tribunal reversed the order of the First Additional Controller, Delhi, dated 19th January, 1968 and finally ordered eviction of the tenant on the ground of bonafide personal necessity specified in clause (e) of Sub Section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to the appeals are that Smt. Ram Piari Devi was the owner of the property bearing No. 37/CA/6007, situated at Jawahar Nagar, Delhi. Tilak Raj was a tenant in respect of three rooms on the first floor of The said house on a contracted rent of Rs. 100/- per month and Rameshwar Dass was a tenant in respect of one Barsati and a terrace on the second floor of the house on a contracted rent of Rs. 30/- per month. The landlady instituted two petitions of eviction against the aforesaid two tenants. Petition No. 429 of 1966 was directed against Rameshwar Dass and was filed on the ground of non-payment of rent and bonafide personal necessity being mentioned in clause (a) and (e) of sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Rent Act. The second petition No. 430 of 1966 was filed against Tilak Raj Sethi and the grounds of eviction sought were the same.

(3.) In defence the tenants controverted the allegations of the landlady respect of bonafide personal necessity and in their written statements raised pleas that the standard rents or the premises were much lower than the contracted rents and the same be fixed accordingly. On an order under Sub Section (1) of Section 15 of the Rent Act being passed, the arrears of rents were deposited by both the tenants and the ground of eviction as non-payment of' rent no longer survived and the trial proceeded on bonafide personal necessity being the ground for eviction. The First Additional Controller repelled the contention of the landlady and he found that her need was not genuine and she did not bonafide require the premises in dispute. He, however, accepted the plea of fixation of rent raised in the written statement and reduced the rent in the case of Rameshwar Dass at Rs. 6.25 P. Per month in the case to Tilak Raj Sethi at Rs. 43.75 P. per month. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the landlady filed two appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal repelled the contentions of the tenants that reasonable notices terminating their tenancies had not been served on them. The tribunal came to contrary conclusion on the question of bonafide personal necessity to occupy the premises and he hard the claims of the landlady to be bonafide and allowed eviction of both the tenants of the grounds mentioned in clause (c) sub Section (1) of Section 14 of the Rent Act. The Tribunal further maintained the order fixing the standard rents of the premises. The tenants have come to this court in appeal and the landlady has filed cross objections against the order of the Tribunal by which he maintained the standard rents of the premises.