A W BENJAMIN Vs. RAJ KISHAN JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal from order has been filed under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act real with Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the tenant against the appellate order of the Control Tribunal dated December 3, 1970bywhich he dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the Rent Controller dated June 10, 1970 dismissing the objections of the tenant against execution of the order for eviction which had been passed against him.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the appellant before me is the tenant while the respondent is the landlord and owner of the premises in dispute. On September 24, 1966 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona fide personal necessity mentioned in clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (i) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 59 of 1958 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). In paragraph 18 of the petition, the landlord had specified the ingredients of clause (e) of the Act while in paragraph 20 he had claimed an order for eviction with other incidentaal reliefs and costs. The tenant filed a written-statemeat contesting the ground of eviction and he urged that the landlord did not need the premises in dispute bona fide for his residence but he wanted to sell the' property and at any event he had sufficient accommodation available for Ins residence. Replication to the written-statement was filed and the case proceeded to trial. On February 28, 1967 the landlord examined one witness, a medical practitioner who deposed about the number of the members of the family of the landlord, the availability of the accommodation with him and its insufficiency and also to the fact that the landlord and his wife had been ailing. The witness was crossexamined for sometime at length but the cross-examination was reserved and was directed to continue on April 3, 1967 when owing to the absence of the witness it was adjourned to May 25, 1967. On the said date, the tenant, Benjumin made the following statement :-

(3.) The tenant thereafter wrote in his own hand that he would vacate the premises described in the statement after 3 years from the date. There are supplementary statements by the parties which are not indispute before me and they relate to payment of future rent by way of damages for use and occupation and an agreement not to sublet or part with the possession oft] e premises. In view of the said statements and the state of records, the Controller passed an or ler on Miy 25, 1967 which !s reproduced in full in he order of the Tribunal under appeal and the materi I extract of which reads as follows:-