BRIJ GOPAL Vs. LAKSHMI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Laxmi Chand, respondent No. 1, is the owner of the premises in dispute. Madan Gopal, respondent No. 2, the alleged tenant, and Brif Gopal appellant, the alleged sub-tenant, are real brothers. Respondent No. 1, brought " an eviction petition against respondent No. 2, and the appellant under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The Additional Controller orderded eviction of the appellant and respondent No. 2. The learned Rent Control Tribunal concurring with the Additional Controller, concluded that it was Madan Gopal, who was a tenant under Laxmi Chand, and not Brij Gopal, the appellant, who had failed to prove that he was in occupation of the premises in dispute as a direct tenant under respondent No. 1, that Madan Gopal, tenant has neither paid nor tendered the arrears of rent legally recoverable from him after two months of the service of notice of demand; that he failed to comply with the orders passed under section 15 (1) of the Act and was, therefore, not entitled to the benefit of the provisions contained in section 14 (2) of the Act. Madan Gopal, tenant, was further found to have acquired alternative residential accommodation and neither he nor any member of his family was found to be residing in the premises in dispute for more than six months immediately before the filing of the eviction application. The premises had been let out for residential purposes. Madan Gopal was also held to have parted with possession of the premises in favour of the appellant. The requisite permission from the Competent Authority under the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 had been duly obtained against Madan Gopal. It was under these circumstances that dismissing the appeal, with costs the order for eviction of the appellant and respondent No. 2 from the premises in dispute passed by the Additional Controller was maintained. It was specifically stated in the judgment of the Tribunal that no other paint was urged before it.

(2.) The attempt of the learned counsel for the appellant in this Court to find fault with the conclusions reached by the Tribunal, which are finding of fact, on the ground that the same are not fully supported by the evidence on record, is of no avail, as this Court will not enter into a reassessment of the evidence adduced in the case. In Vinod Kwnar v. Ajit Singh Ahluwalia, the 1969. R.C.J. 218, Supreme Court observed, that the High Court will not reopen the questions of fact, which have been decided.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant then contended that in this case, notice as required under section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act had not been served terminating the tenancy. The tenant being Madan Gopal according to the findings of the learned Rent Control Tribunal, it was he on whom the notice was required to be served. No objection on this score having been raised by Madan Gopal, it can safely be assumed that either the notice was served on him and he had no objection thereto or he had waived the service of such a notice, which he could do, especially as the termination of tenancy can be brought about by an agreement between the parties. The question of termination of tenancy by a notice to quit or otherwise is itself a question which can be decided only after the parties have been given an opportunity to lead evidence. This question not having been urged by the tenant at the earlier stage cannot be looked into now. In any case, this question was not urged before the Rent Control Tribunal and this Court would not permit the raising of this question for the first time in second appeal.