BRAMHA KUMARI Vs. SARWAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal on behalf .of the landlady under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and order dated 23rd December, 1977 of the Rent Control Tribunal dismissing her eviction application confirming the order dated 15th October, 1975 of the Additional Controller.

(2.) To appreciate the questions involved in this appeal it is necessary to recall the history of the previous litigation regarding the suit premises. One Shri Dayal Sharma was owner-landlord of premises No. 6391 at Plot No.65-A, Kamla Nagar Delhi. Sarwan Singh, respondent. No. 1 was her tanant on a monthly rent of Rs. 17 on 27th September, 1965 Shri Dayal Sharma filed an eviction application against Sarwan Singh on the grounds of eviction mentioned in clauses (b), (d) and (h) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act alleging that he had sublet the premises; he has built or acquired suitable accommodation at C-3, Rana Pratap Bagh Delhi, that he has not been residing in the premises for the last more than six months. Shri Dayal Sharma sold the suit property to the appellant Smt. Bramha Kumari by means of a registered sale deed dated 8th October, 1965. The appellant made an application under Order 1 rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called 'the Code') in the said eviction case for .being impleaded as a party or in the alternative for being substituted as she had purchased the suit property. After some hearings, it was stated on her behalf that she would file a separate eviction case and therefore her application under Order 1 rule 10 of the Code be dismissed as withdrawn and it was dismissed as such vide order dated 11th March, 1966. The Additional Controller by another order of the same date also passed an order dismissing. the eviction application of Shri Dayal Sharma holding that he no longer was having any interest as landlord in the premises and therefore would not be entitled to an order of eviction. The present appellant on 29th March, 1966 therefore filed an eviction application against the respondents, namely, Sarwan Singh and Babu Singh on the grounds mentioned in clauses (b), (d) and (h) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. The respondents filed their written statements but the eviction application was dismissed as withdrawn with permission to file a fresh application on the same cause of action. As notice of eviction had not been served by the appellant, she was therefore permitted to file a fresh eviction application.

(3.) On 7th February, 1968 the appellant again filed the eviction application on the same grounds mentioned in clauses (b), (d) and (h) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act against both the respondents. In his written statement dated 10th April, 1968, respondent No. 1 pleads that he ceased to be the tenant of Shri Dayal Sharma, predecessor-in- interest of the appellant, in 1958, that he is not tenant under the appellant, that Babu Singh, respondent No. 2 became a tenant under Shri Dayal Sharma' in 1958, that the eviction application is barred under Order 2 rule 2 and Order 23 rule 1 of the Code and other provisions of law. Respondent No. 2 in his written statement pleads that respondent No. 1 shifted to his house at Rana Partap Bagh and also surrendered, his tenancy in 1958 to Shri Dayal Sharma, that possession of a portion of the tenancy premises was also surrendered to the landlord Shri Dayal Sharma, that he became a tenant under Shri Dayal Sharma in 1958 on a monthly rent of Rs. 30.00 , that no receipt for payment of rent was granted to him. The Additional Controller by his order dated 15th October, 1975 held that the eviction application was barred on account of the dismissal of the earlier eviction application filed by Shri Dayal Sharma and also on account of the withdrawal of her application under Order 1 rule 10 of the Code by the appellant. On merits, the Additional Controller held that respondent No. 1 never ceased to be a tenant in the demised premises, that he had assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the premises to Babu Singh without the written consent of the appellant, that respondent No. 1 had acquired another house at Rana Pratap Bagh and had not been residing in the suit premises for more than six months. In other words, the Additional Controller held that the appellant had proved all the three grounds of eviction mentioned in clauses (b), (d) and (h) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. On appeal, the Rent Control Tribunal held that the eviction application was not berred on account of the dismissal of the previous eviction application and withdrawal of application under Order I rule 10 of the Code on 11th March, 1966. On merits, the Tribunal, however, held Babu Singh, respondent No. 2 to be a tenant in the suit premises and hence dismissed the eviction application. Hence this second appeal. Respondents also filed cross-objections, C. N- No. 833 of 1978 alleging that the present eviction application is hatred in law.