NARESH RANI Vs. HARK DUTT SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of two second appeals from order Nos. 252 and 253 of 1971. They have been filed by the landlady against two tenants on the groundfloor of the same property and they raise a common question of law and fact and can be conveniently disposed of together. The petitions had been consolidated in the court of first instance.

(2.) The appeals have been filed under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 59 of 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and are directed against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 28th September, 1971 by which it dismissed the appeal and maintained the order of the Additional Controller dated 28th August, 1970, whereby the landlady had been directed under section 45 of the Act to restore the amenity of the bath-room and the courtyard which had been obstructed by the landlady.

(3.) The respondents are tenants in respect of the groundfloor of the property in dispute and the property was purchased by the appellant-landlady on 21st March, 1966. There has been some trouble between the parties and according to the appellant a settlement had been arrived at on 18th August, 1967, but I am informed at the bar that a petition for eviction is still pending in appropriate Court. The tenants found that in June, 1968 the landlady had deprived them of the use of the bathroom by storing her goods therein and also deprived them of the free passage and use of the courtyard by causing obstruction by storing building material therein. Aggrieved by this obstruction, the two tenants (who are tenants) filed petition before the Controller under section 45 of the Act for the relief that the essential service of the bath room and the courtyard be restored to them and the landlady be ordered to remove her material from there. The petitions were filed on the allegations that the use of the bothroom and the courtyard was part of the tenanted premises of which the landlady had deprived them and that they were amenities and essential supplies, the lack of which was causing great injury to the tenants and the landlady had done so with the dominant intention to bring pressure upon the tenants to vacate the premises.