CHINNAMMA RAINI GUPTARA Vs. DEWAN HARISH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An order for eviction of the appelant from the premises belonging to the respondent was passed by the Controller under proviso (i) to section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act). The order was confirmed by the Rent Control Tribunal. Hence this second appeal by the tenant under section 39 of the Act.

(2.) The appellant occupied the premises of the respondent landlord from October-November 1961. According to the landlord, she did so from the very beginning in the capacity of a servant of the respondent master. The respondent is a doctor while the appellant is a nurse. The respondent's contention is that the occupation of the premises by the appellant from the very inception was by virtue of the employment though a formal agreement of the conditions on which the appellant occupied the premises came to be executed in March 1962. The appellant on the other hand contended that she was an ordinary tenant of the respondent who was an ordinary landlord from October 1961 though she admitted to have executed the agreement in favour of the respondent in March 1962, which is at Exhibit Al. According to this agreement the appellant was to occupy the premises only so long as she served the respondent as a nurse. The respondent was to pay to her a salary of Rs. 30.00 per month.

(3.) The respondent later on terminated the services of the appellant by a notice dated 8th November 1965 and asked her to vacate the premises in accordance with the above agreement. As the appellant refused to vacate the premises, the respondent filed a petition for eviction under section 14(l)(i) of the Act and obtained an order of eviction against the appellant from the Controller which was confirmed by the Rent Control Tribunal.