HAZARI LAL Vs. GIANI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as "the. Rent Act", has come before us upon a reference by one of us (Tatachari J.) to determine the exact scope of the expre-ssion "otherwise parted with the possession" used in clause (b) to the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Rent Act. The question has arisen in the circumstances set out hercinafte'..

(2.) The appellants are the landlords of House No. 946, Ward No. 8. Gali Nai Basti, Kucha Pati Ram, Delhi, wherein respondent No. 1 was a tenant of three rooms and two Kothries on the ground floor at a rental of Rs. 16.97 per month. The appellants filed a petition for the eviction of respondent No. 1 from the aforesaid tenancy premises on the ground that respondent No. 1 had not paid the arrears of rent from December 1, 1959, till the end of March, 1961; that respondent No. 1 "is suitably accommodated in Vinay Nagar, New Delhi, where he is residing permanently from more than a year" and that respondent No. 1 had sublet the tenancy premises to respondents Nos. 2 to 4 (Chanda Lal; Pandit Ranjit and Suba Rao respectively) without the consent of the appellants for about a year. The arrears of rent were deposited in the Court under the provisions of the Rent Act and the question of eviction on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent did not survive before the Rent Controller or the Rent Control Tribunal and docs not survive here. The petition for eviction was contested only by respondent No. 1. On the question of sub-tenancy, the case of respondent No. I was that he himself was occupying the premises and that no other person was in possession thereof as a sub-tenant. Respondent No. 1 also denied that he had any other place where he could live as of right. In the additional pleas, respondent No. 1 stated that respondent No. 2 (Chanda Lal) was the real brother-in-law of his son and respondent No. 3 (Pandit Ranjit) was his cook. It was further stated that respondent No. 2 had been living with respondent No. 1 for the last five years as his relative. It was denied that respondent No. 4 (Suba Rao) ever resided with respondent No. 1.

(3.) Before the appearance of the respondents in the Court of the Rent. Controller, the appellants filed an application under Order 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure to ascertain who was in possession of the property in suit. Notice of this application was ordered to issue for Hie date fixed in the main petition. At the same time the Rent Controller appointed Mr. P. C. Mital, Advocate, as Local Commissioner "to goto the spot and after inspection report as to who is in occupation of the premises in dispute. His fee is fixed Rs. 30 -". In pursuance of this order the Local Commissioner submitted his report (Exhibit AW.I/I) to the Rent Controller. He reported that he found respondents Nos. 2 to 4 in occupation of the tenancy premises. He further stated that on interrogation respondents Nos. 2 and 4 told him that none of the household goods in the tenancy premises belonged to the tenant respondent No. 1 who had left the premises and was living in the quarters in East Vinay Nagar, New Delhi, with his son. Sliri Kishan Gupta for the last 2j or 3 years. He further reported that respondent No. 4 was doing the agency work of a firm of the brother of respondent No. 2; that respondent No. 2 was an employee of the State Bank of India and respondent No. 3 was their servant. He further reported that respondent No. 4 was sitting in one of the rooms with some samples of cloth of carpets and respondent No. 2 was worshipping in the court-yard and respondent No. 3 was cooking food. He further reported that respondents No. 2 to 4 were found by him to be in exclusive possession of the tenancy premises and he recorded the statements of respondents Nos. 2 and 4 which were signed, by them. It will. therefore, be seen that the Commissioner not only made a report about his visual inspection of the tenancy premises to ascertain as to who were in occupation of the tenancy premises as he was ordered to do but went further and recorded the statements of respondents Nos. 2 and 4. These statements were filed with the report and were marked as Exhibit AW. 1/2 on having been proved by Mr. Mital who appeared as a witness for the appellants.