BATTOO MAL Vs. RAMESHWAR NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal under Section 39(2) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 by the tenant whose eviction has been ordered both by the Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal ander provisos (e) and (h) to Section 14(1) of the said Act, i.e. because the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his own' residence and because the tenant has acquired possession of separate residence for himself.

(2.) Originally the tenant-appellant attacked the decision of the tribunal in various grounds, namely, that the respondent-landlord was not proved to be the sole owner of the premises, that the respondent-landlord has not been able to prove that the he requires the premises bona fide for his own residence, that the landlord had not terminated the contractual tenancy by a notice given under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and, therefore, he could not maintain a petition for eviction under Sectton 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and lastly that the proviso (h) to Section 14(1) of the said Act had not been satisfied in as much as the tenant did not continue in vacant possession of a separate residence till the date on which the petition for eviction was instituted by the landlord which petition could not, therefore, be maintained.

(3.) The respondent-landlord urged that the plea regarding alleged non-compliance with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act by the landlord could not be taken by the tenant for the first time is second appeal inasmuch as she was deemed to have waived it by his failure to raise it before the Controller. He tried to raise it before the Tribunal by way of an amendment of his written statement but the Tribunal rightly rejected the application for amendment.