S R DUTTA Vs. CHUNNI LAL BHATIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') on behalf of the tenant challenging the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Tribunal dated 23rd April, 1980 confirming the order of eviction dated 11th October, 1979 passed by the Controller, Delhi under Section 14(l)(e) of the Act. The respondent-landlord claimed eviction of the appellant on the ground that he required the suit premises for his personal bona fide necessity and for bona fide need of his married daughter Smt. Kamlesh Bhatia for whose benefit he was holding the premises. It is desirable to quote the exact plea taken by the respondent in para 18(a) of the eviction application :

(2.) The appellant in the written statement denied that the respondent was holding the premises for the benefit of his married daughter Smt. Kamlesh Bhatia. He alleged that her husband was gainfully employed, that she would stay with her husband, that there was no question of her staying with the respondent-landlord, that the accommodation in possession of the respondent was more than sufficient looking to his requirement and status in life. The appellant further pleaded that the respondent did not require the premises bona fide, the intention being to let out at higher rent, that the alleged requirement was mala fide as standard rent had been fixed at Rs. 222.50 per month by the Controller whereas the contractual rent was Rs. 450.00 per month. In replication the respondent pleaded that he required the premises bona fide for his own need and for his daughter and son-in-law for whose benefit the premises were kept by him, that the daughter of her daughter had been living with him since she was only one-month-old and that she was attached to him and to his wife. The respondent further pleaded that his daughter got herself transferred from Jullundur to Delhi to live with her child. He further stated that he and his wife were old and their daughter would stay to look after them as their only son was posted at Bombay, and that his daughter had already been transferred to Delhi and she was staying with them along with her husband. The Controller and the Tribunal passed an order of eviction, as already stated, under Section 14(l)(e) of the Act holding that the respondent required the premises for her daughter to look after him and his wife in old age. It was further held that the grand daughter of the respondent was also residing with him and that his daughter would not only be with him but also with her child. The appellant tenant being dissatisfied with the judgment and order of the Tribunal and the Controller has filed this second appeal.

(3.) During the pendency of the appeal in this court, Smt. Kamlesh Bhatia, married daughter of the respondent-landlord, died on 25th July, 1980. The appellant in his application, (C.M. No. 2530 of 1980) prayed that on account of unfortunate death of the married daughter of the respondent for whose requirement the eviction order was passed by the tribunal, the alleged requirement of the respondent disappeared and that the subsequent event that has taken place after the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal be taken into consideration at the time of hearing of the appeal. The respondent in reply to this application states that though the married daughter Smt. Kamlesh Bhatia is dead but the bona fide need of the respondent- landlord has not disappeared on account of her death. He alleges that his son-in-law and his minor granddaughter are residing with him and that he and his wife who are aged 74 years and 70 years, respectively, need their presence in this house as nobody else in Delhi is there to look after them in their old age.