GOVINDJI KHERA Vs. PADMA BHATIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The eviction of the appellant-tenant was sought by the respondent-landlord initially on two grounds, namely, those embodied in provisos (b), (h) to Section 14 (1) of the Delhi Bent Control Act, 1958. The finding of fact by both the Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal was that the father of the tenant was residing with him as a member of the family of the tenant from the inception of the tenancy. In 1961, the tenant was transferred to Jabalpur and left the premises at Delhi in charge of his father and went to Jabalpur where he occupied a residence allotted to him by the Government.

(2.) The Controller negatived both the grounds urged by the landlord for the eviction of the tenant. He held that the father of the tenant being a member of the tenancy family it could not be said that the tenant had either sublet or parted with the possession of the premises in his favour within the meaning of proviso (b) to Section 14 (1). He also held that the acquisition of a residence by the tenant outside the Union territory of Delhi was not sufficient to attract proviso (h) to Section 14 (1). The Controller dismissed the application of the landlord for the eviction.

(3.) The Rent Control Tribunal in the appeal filed by the landlord upheld the decision of the Controller that the landlord was not entitled to evict the tenant under proviso (b) to Section 14 (1) but disagreed with the Controller and held that the landlord was entitled to evict the tenant under proviso (h) to Section 14 (1) even if a residence acquired by the tenant was at Jabalpur outside Delhi. He therefore, passed an order of eviction in favour of the landlord.