OM PARKASH AND OTHERS Vs. MAHINDER KUMAR MALHOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the tenant, Om Parkash and his two brothers, Anand Parkash and Sat Parkash against the order of eviction passed against them by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, which was confirmed by the Rent Control Tribunal. The only ground of ejectment was that the tenant had built a residence and, therefore, was liable to be ejected under section 14(l)(h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The property which has been constructed by the appellants is situated at No. 22, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi. The premises concerning which the ejectment order has been passed, bears No. R-648, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi. The tenant Om Parkash occupied these premises from 1-11-1961 at Rs. 275/- per month. There was a previous ejectment petition against Om Parkash on the ground of sub-letting to the two appellants, Anand Parkash and Sat Parkash, who are his brothers, but it was held therein that the brothers were living jointly and the premises had been taken by Om Parkash for himself and on behalf of his family and for their benefit.

(2.) It appears that the plot situated at No. 22, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi, was acquired by the father of the appellant by means of a lease deed dated 23-6-1952, and under the terms of the lease a double storey building had to be constructed, but only a single storey was erected. Subsequently, the Land and Development Officer threatened to take action to terminate the lease under the lease deed in case the upper storey was not constructed. After the death of the father of the appellants there was an agreement between the appellants and the other heirs of Shri Banu Ram with the tenant of the ground floor flat in 22, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi, the Delhi Flour Mills Company Ltd., by which Rs. 46,000/- were lent by that company to the said heirs to construct the upper storey of the said Bungalow at No. 22, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi, on the condition that after it was constructed, it would be let out to the said Delhi Flour Mills Company Ltd., and the rent of the lower and upper storey combined would be Rs. 2,000/- per month out of which Rs. 800/- per month would be retained by the tenant to pay off the loan of Rs. 40,000/-. In accordance with this agreement the upper storey was constructed and apparently was completed on 26-6-1966. Thereafter another agreement was drawn up in December, 1966. Exhibit R. W. 2/3, between the heirs of the late Banu Ram containing the various terms on which the property was to be leased out to the Delhi Flour Mills Company Ltd. The main terms being the ones which I have set out already. In addition permission was given to the said Delhi Flour Mills Company Ltd., to sublet the premises to any person or party belonging to the company or Its allied concerns but not to outsiders. The tenant was also permitted to use the residence for office purposes.

(3.) There is another submission which has been made on behalf of the appellants, by Mr. L. R. Gupta, their learned counsel which I shall deal with first. The submission is that it was held in the previous case instituted by the landlord against the tenant that the property had been taken by the tenant not only on his own behalf but also on behalf of his family and for the benefit of the said family. It is, therefore submitted that all the heirs of Shri Banu Ram should have been impleaded in this eviction petition and therefore the eviction petition is not maintainably without impleading all the persons who are tenants. It is said that the widowed mother of the appellants and an elder brother were also necessary parties as they were also tenants. It is not necessary to go into this question in very great detail because the decision in the previous case to my mind did not hold that those heirs i.e., the brothers of Om Parkash and his mother were tenants but only held that they were entitled to live in the house along with the tenant and the property had been taken also for their benefit. The learned Tribunal has held on this part of the case that in the previous case a written statement had been filed by the appellant which is Exhibit A 2 and there it has been admitted that Om Parkash had taken the premises on lease for the benefit and residence of the joint family of which he and the other appellants were members. The Tribunal therefore held that there was an admission that Om Parkash alone was the tenant. Mr. Gupta challenges this view.