GERA SINGH Vs. KASTURI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three Second Appeals may be disposed of by a common judgment. They had originally come up for hearing before our learned Brother, S. N. Shanker J. and it was pointed out by the learned counsel in the second appeals that certain questions raised in the Second Appeals arose also in another Second Appeal, Battoo Mal v. Rameshwar Nath,1970 RCR 532 and were referred to a larger Bench By Hardayal Hardy J. The learned Judge, therefore, by an order dated 4-3-1970. directed these Second Appeals to be heard by a larger Bench. That is how these Second Appeals have come up before this Division Bench for hearing. It may be stated that the case of Battoo Mal has since been disposed of by Hardayal Hardy and V. S. Deshpande,1970 RCR 532.

(2.) The facts which have given rise to these Second Appeals are as follows :- -Kasturi Lal, respondent in S.A.O. Nos. 23 and 24 of 1965, and appellant in S.A.O. No. 80 of 1965, had purchased a house bearing Municipal No. 7177 (Old), 5015, (New) and situated in Ward No. XII, Roshnara Road, Subzi Mandi, Delhi, in auction from the Custodian of Evacuee Property under a Sale Certificate, dated 22-4-1960, and he became the owner of the house with effect from 7-1-1957, the date of the auction. One Sarwan Singh was a tenant in respect of a portion of the first flooor of the house consisting of one room with amenities at Rs. 6.25 paisa per month as rent. His brother, Santokh Singh, had also been living with him from the very beginning i. e. from 1947 or so. There are two rooms on the ground floor. One Rajinder Singh was the tenant in respect of one of the rooms at Rs. 3.31 per month as rent, and one Gera Singh was the tenant in respect of the other room on the ground floor at Rs. 9/- per month.

(3.) The landlord Kasturi Lal, filed three petition Nos. 299, 295 and 109 of 1962 for the eviction of Sarwan Singh and Santokh Singh, Gera Singh and Rajinder Singh respectively. In all the three petitions, the landlord alleged that the premises was residential, and claimed eviction of the three tenants on the ground that he required the premises bonafide for the residence of himself and members of his family dependent on him. In the petition against Sarwan Singh and Santokh Singh, he prayed for eviction also on the grounds that the premises were sublet by Sarwan Singh to Santokh Singh without his consent in writing, that Sarwan Singh was not living at all in the premises, and that Sarwan Singh had acquired another house in Ramesh Nagar. The tenants contested the petitions and all of them, while admitting the ownership of the landlord, the tenancies and the rates of rent, pleaded that the landlord had ample accommodation in his occupation and that he did not require the premises bonafide for the residence of himself and members of his family dependent upon him Sarwan Singh denied the alleged subletting and his leaving the premises, and pleaded that his brother Santokh Singh had been living with the members of his family in the portion in question since 1947. He also denied the alleged acquisition of vacant possession of a house in Ramesh Nagar, Delhi. Rajinder Singh pleaded that the premises were non-residential, and that he had been using the portion under his tenancy as a shop besides residing in the same. All the three petitions were consolidated and the evidence was recorded in the petition No. 299 of 1962.