PARVIN SARIN Vs. MANBIR SINGH,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal under Sec. 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') filed by Parvin Sarin, tenant, is directed against the judgment and order dated 4th September, 1980 of the Rent Control Tribunal confirming the judgment and order dated 23rd January, 1979 of the Additional Controller passing an order of eviction against the appellant. Respondents I and 2 filed an eviction petition against the appellant being tenant and Ravinder Sarin, Respondent No. 3 the alleged Subtenant on the grounds mentioned in clauses (a), (b) and (e) of the proviso to sub -Section (1) of Sec. 14 of the Act. The ground under clause (b) has been negatived by the Additional Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal and is no more in dispute before me. As regards non -payment of rent under clause (a) of the proviso to sub -section (1) of Sec. 14 of the Act, it has been held by the Controller and the Tribunal that the valid notice was served, that the tenant neither paid nor tendered arrears of rent within two months from the notice of demand, and that the appellant -tenant had complied with the order under Sec. 15(1) of the Act. Under these circumstances ,it was held that the tenant -appellant had enjoyed the benefit of Sec. 14(2) of the Act and is not liable to eviction on that ground.

(2.) The real contest before me is on the ground of eviction mentioned in Sec. 14(1)(e) of the Act. The Controller and the Tribunal have held that respondents I and 2 are the owners, that the premises were let for residential purposes, that the respondents bona fide required the premises and they have no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It has also been held that the eviction petition is not bad for partial eviction. In other words, it was held that the eviction petition pertains to the tenancy premises.

(3.) Manbir Singh, respondent No. 1 is an Advocate. Respondent No. 2 is his mother. The premises in suit consist of three rooms, kitchen, bath, latrine, Barsati and terrace on the second floor and a garage on the ground floor which are shown in red and blue in the plan Ex. A. W 8/1. S.N .Sarin, father of the appellant who died in December, 1969 had taken these premises in suit and one room on the basement of the property in 1944 or 1949. After his death the appellant became a tenant. The agreed rent was Rs. 60.00 per month besides water and electricity charges but the standard rent was fixed at Rs. 42.50 per month.