GURBACHAN SINGH Vs. RAJ PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal on behalf of the landlord under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and order dated 7th November, 197/ of the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, reversing the judgment and order dated 3rd April, 1976 of the Additional Re nt Controller and finally dismissing the appellant's application for eviction of the respondent under Section 14(l)(e) of the Act. The appellant inducted the respondent as a tenant in his house No. 49, Block No. 'A', Lajpat Nagar 1st, New Delhi, on 1st August, 1970, at Rs. 250.00 per month. He filed an eviction application, out of which this second appeal has arisen on 20th May, 1974. The ground of eviction is worded as follows:-

(2.) The respondent contested the eviction application on various grounds but the Additional Rent Controller, as already stated, passed an order of eviction under Section 14(l)(e) of the Act holding that the appellant is the owner of the suit premises, that the premises were let for residential purposes, that he bona fide requires the suit premises for his own residence and that he has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. On appeal, the Rent Control Tribunal held that the appellant was the owner of the suit premises and that the premises were let for residential purposes. The Tribunal however, held that the appellant was in possession of the ground floor of the property at Plot No. S-191, Greater Kailash, New Delhi, which house is admittedly owned by the daughter-in-law of the appellant. The Tribunal was of the view that there were no circumstances which prompted the appellant to seek eviction of the respondent and that there was no plea that the accommodation with the appellant on Plot No. S. 191 was not otherwise suitable for his requirement and for his family.

(3.) The short question in this case is whether the accommodation with the appellant and his family on the ground floor of the property at Plot No. S-191, Greater Kailash, New Delhi, is not a reaconably suitable residential accommodation with the appellant. It is proved on record that this property belongs to the daughter-in-law of the appellant. The appellant has, no doubt, been residing in this property but it seems to me that he has no right to continue to reside there. He is at the mercy of his daughter-in-law. The daughter-in-law and the son of the appellant are settled in Bangkok but they do not want the appellant to continue to reside in their property. The Tribunal further observed that the daughter-in-law has not been produced as a witness and. therefore it could not be held that the appellant was not in possession of a reasonably suitable residential accommodation.