SUSHIL CHANDER GUPTA Vs. RADHA KRISHAN BHATIJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) : The short question for determination in this appeal is whether the tenant is liable to ejectment on the ground of Section 14 (1) (d) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the Act). Section 14 (1) (d) reads : "The premises were let for use as a residence and neither the tenant nor any member of his family has been residing therein for a period of six months immediately before the date of the filing of the application for the recovery of possession thereof."

(2.) On 27th August, 1974, the landlord brought an application for ejectment of the tenant on several grounds. First he obtained an ex parte order of eviction. In execution he obtained possession of the premises. Later on the ex-parte order was set aside. But restitution was not ordered. The case itself was ordered to be decided expenditiously. The case was then heard. The additional controller after hearing evidence and arguments ordered the ejectment of the tenant on the ground of S. 14 (1) (d) of the Act. From his order the tenant appealed to the Rent Control Tribunal. The tribunal decided in favour of the tenant. It held that the tenant was not liable to ejectment. Now the landlord appels to this court from the order of the tribunal dated 19th April, 1979.

(3.) The crucial period for proving the non-residence of the tenant in the premises is the period of six months "immediately before the date of the filing of the application" for eviction. The application for ejectment was made on 27th August, 1974. So what has to be seen is whether the tenant or any member of his family was residing in the premises from 27th February, 1974 to 27th August, 1974. This is single question to be determined in the case.