LACHHMAN DASS AND ANOTHER Vs. SURAJ PARKASH MAHAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Rent Controller bad ordered the eviction of the appellants on grounds of non-payment of rent. Appeals were filed by the tenants-appellants as well as by the respondent-landlord. The Rent Control Tribunal allowed the appeal of the tenant and did not order eviction on ground of non - payment of rent. The Tribunal, however, allowed the appeal of the landlord and ordered the eviction of the tenant on ground contained in Sec. 14(1)(f) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

(2.) Eviction under section 1 (1) (f) could have been ordered if three ingredients were present, namely (a) the premises had become unsafe or unfit for human habitation, (b) they were required bona fide by the landlord for carrying out repairs and (c) the repairs could not be carried out without the premises being vacated.

(3.) The Tribunal in his order has not specifically given any finding as to whether the Premises had become unsafe or unfit for human habitation or not. This finding is necessary in order to decide whether eviction could or could not be ordered on the ground mentioned in section 14(1)(f). It is, therefore, necessary that a finding on this aspect should be given by the Tribunal. In order that the case may not be necessarily prolonged the best course which is open is to call for a remand report from the Rent Control Tribunal.