UMA SHANKAR Vs. QABULI DEVI AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of three second appeals filed by three different tenants. The first is S,A.0. No. 14 of 1971 filed by Uma Shanker, the second S.A.O. No. 67 of 1971 filed by Albel Singh and the third S. A. 0, No. 73 of 1971 is filed by Behari Lat. Shrimati Qabuli Devi and Shrimati Chameli Devi are the landladies, who are the respondents in all the three appeals.

(2.) The respondent-landladies. acquired the property of which the premises in dispute in all the three appeals form parts, by purchase in September 1956. In 1962 the respondents filed eviction petitions against Albel Singh and Behari Lal tenants, on the ground that the premises were required by landladies bonafide for their personal requirements. Both these petitions were dismissed. Appeals against the dismissal, met the same fate. On October 29, 1968 the respondents filed an application for eviction of the appellant, Uma Shanker. Eviction petitions were also filed against Albel Singh and Behari Lal on January 25, 1969. In all the three eviction petitions the main ground was the bonafide requirement of the premises for occupation as residence for the respondent-landladies themselves and for the members of their families. An additional ground was taken against Uma Shanker, that he had acquired vacant possession of alternate accommodation for residential purposes. Against Albel Singh, a further allegation was made that he had caused substantial damage to the premises in dispute. All the three eviction petitions were consolidated and disposed of by the Additional Controller by one common judgment. It was held that the respondent-landladies had failed to prove that they bonafide required the premises in dispute for occupation as residence for themselves and the members of their families. The ground for eviction under clause (e) of the proviso to section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, herein called 'the Act', was, therefore, negatived. It was also held that Albel Singh had not caused any substantial damage as was alleged. Uma Shanker, however, was held to have acquired an alternative residence and he was held liable for eviction under clause (h) of the proviso to section 14(1) of the Act. The eviction petitions against Albel Singh and Behari Lal were accordingly dismissed while order for recovery of possession was passed against Uma Shanker.

(3.) The respondent-landladies filed two separate appeals against Albel Singh and Behari Lal respectively, while Uma Shanker filed an appeal against the order for his eviction. All the said three appeals were decided by the Rent Control Tribunal by a common order. While Albel Singh and Behari Lal had not disputed that the respondents were the owners of the premises in dispute, Uma Shanker appellant had denied this fact in view of the admission of all the three appellants in their respective rent notes that the respondents were the owners; and on assessment of the evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the respondents were the owners of the premises in dispute. There was no dispute about the fact that the premises in dispute had been let out to all the three tenants for residential purposes. In regard to the question about the bonafide requirements of the landladies for the premises in dispute for their own residence, the Tribunal found that respondent, Qabuli Devi had six sons besides herself and her husband. Three of the sons were in the United States of America; the fourth son was married and-employed with Messrs Sarabhai Chemicals and was posted at Bhatinda. The fifth son was studying in a Medical College outside Delhi. The Sixth son, who is married and has four children, was living along with Qabuli Devi and her husband in Delhi in a part of this very property. The entire first floor consists of nine rooms and the second floor consists of some barsatis. All this accommodation along with a garrage on the ground floor was admittedly in the occupation of Qabuli Devi. In view of this it was considered that Qabuli Devi was in possession of sufficient accommodation for herself and for the members of her family, Agreeing with the Additional Controller, the Tribunal, therefore, held that Qabuli Devi did not require the premises in dispute bonafide for occupation for herself and the members of her family.