(1.) This second appeal is directed against the judgement dated January 25, 1966 of the learned Rent Control Tribunal, who dismissing the landlord's appeal, affirmed the judgement of the' Controller whereby he had dismissed the eviction application of the landlord against the respondent-tenant
(2.) The appellant-landlord is the owner of a house situated in New Rajinder Nagar. Naw Delhi, and is in occupation of three living rooms, besides, kitchen, store, bath and latrine on its ground floor with two courtyards on both sides. The respondent-tenant has been in ccupation of the first floor consisting of three rooms, two verandahs, kitchen, latrine and bath and the barsati of the said house, at Rs. 260.00 per month as rent, with effect from January 22, 1964. On November 26. 1964, the appellant-landlord filed a petition for the respondent's eviction under clause (b) and (c) of the proviso to section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act on the allegations that the required bona fide the premises in suit for occupation as a residence for himself and his family members; and that the respondent-tenant had sublet a part of the premises without his consent. The tenant denied the appellant's allegations and contended the petition. The learned Controller found that the land-lord-appellant was it possession of the whole house on January 22, 1S64. when he let out the portion in dispute to the respondent. He must have at that time anticipated his requirerments for a further period of six months. The finding of the eviction petitioner after about eleven months on Noveber 26, 1964 itself was a clear indication that he did not, in fact require the premises and his allegations lacked bona fides. The appellant's son was earning Rs. 325.00 per month; and the son's wife was earning Rs. 225.00, per month. The learned Controller, therefore, refused to believe that the son was dependent on the landlord, as with that much of income he could easily set up a small home of his own. The second son was employed in Calcutta, while the third son was working in Nahan. The fourth son, who was studying in some College, lived with him, while his daughter was in some boarding bouse. He, therefore, held that the appellant's claim was not genuine and bona fide Subletting by the respondent-tenant was also held not substantiated. It was under these circumstances that the petition was dismissed
(3.) In appeal, the learned Rent Control Tribunal concurred with the reasons given in the judgment of the Controller, and observed that there had been three letting by the appellant during the last few years. With each letting the appellant had secured an increase in rent. The respondent's counsel had stated at the Bar that there had been a further increase in the prevailing rents during the period that elapsed between the letting of the premises to the respondent and the filing of the ejectment application. The learned Tribunal also noticed that the son was studying in the College and the daughter was about to complete her M B. B.S. course as a lady doctor. Knowing full well the needs of these two children, the appellant had let out the premises to the respondent. The learned Tribunal felt reluctant, therefore, to force on the landlord more comfortable and liberal standards of living, which he himself was not prepared to adopt. The requirements of the appellant's other married son, who was living with him were ignored, as he was considered to be in a position to set up an independent home It was under these circumstances that the appeal was dismissed with costs. The appellant-landlord has come up in second appeal to this court.