BEGUM HAMID ALI KHAN Vs. B H ZAIDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal on behalf of the tenant under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and order of Rent Control Tribunal dated 19th January, 1976 passing an order of eviction in favour of respondent No. 1 against the appellant and respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 1 on 17th March, 1969 filed an application for eviction of the appellant and respondent No. 2 alleging that the appellant was a tenant in a portion of the property at 270, Jamia Mtigar (Zaidi Quarters) Okhla, New Delhi, on a monthly rent of Rs. 450.00 ; that the premises were let for residential purposes ; that he requires the same for himself and his family members and that he has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It was further alleged that the appellant bad sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession a part of the demised premises to respondent No. 2 without obtaining his consent in writing. The appellant-tenant and respondent No. 2 filed a joint written statement denying the various allegations. Subsequently respondent No. 1 amended the eviction application by adding the words "the petitioner is the owner of the property in suit" in para 18(a)(2) of the eviction application. The Additional Controller by order dated 21st October, 1975, dismissed the eviction application but on appeal the Tribunal passed the order of eviction under Section 14(l)(e) of the Act. The Tribunal however held that the appellant was cot liable to be evicted under Section 14(1 )(b) of the Act. The tenant filed this second appeal.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the original application for eviction filed by respondent No. 1 did not disclose any cause of action as there was no allegation that he was owner of the premises and therefore the same was liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He further submits that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, that respondent No. 1 is not the owner of the suit premises, that the eviction application was premature and was not maintainable in view of Section 14(6) of the Act, that be does not bona fide require the premises in suit, and he has sufficient accommodation in his possession. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 on the other hand submits that the order of eviction passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with Jaw, that in second appeal the findings of fact are binding on this court. He however does not challenge the order of the Tribunal dismissing his application under Section 14(1 )(b) of the Act.

(3.) It is admitted that originally the landlord respondent No. 1 had not alleged in the eviction application that he was the owner of the suit premises. In other words, it means that the original eviction application did not disclose cause of action tor claiming eviction under Section 14(l)(e) of the Act. The eviction was also claimed under Section 14(l)(b) of the Act and therefore it was not a case where plaint did not disclose cause of action for the purpose of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Moreover the respondent No. 1 made an application for amendment by adding the words, "the petitioner is the owner of the property in suit" in para 18(a)(2) of the eviction application. Leave to amend was granted on payment of Rs. 50.00 as costs. The costs were paid and accepted by the counsel for the appellant. The tenant is, therefore, now estopped from challenging the said order allowing amendment.