KAILASH KUMAR DILWALI Vs. B S RAIZADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of exceptions to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi. Rent Control Act. 1938 (hereinafter called the Act) protecting the tenant against eviction, clauses (a) to (1) of the proviso thereto set out the various grounds on which the landlord would be able to evict a tenant. As pointed out in paragraphs 30 and 31 of Batoo Mal v. Rameshwnr Nath, soms of these grounds of eviction arise because of wrongful acts done by the tenant. Clauses (a) to (d),(h) and (j) are such grounds forming class (1). Some other grounds exist for the benefit of the landlord even though the tenant has not done anything wrong. Clauses (e), (g) and (i) are such grounds which form class (II). Under clauses (k) and (1) the landlord is required to act in respect of the premises not at his own instance but at the instance of a public authority and in public interest. These grounds, therefore, form class (III) as they do not fall into class (1) or class (II). Clause (f) may be covered either by class (III) or class (11). If the repairs are to becarried out to the premises thereunder by the landlord in the interests of the tenant or of the public or in pursuance of any order of a public authority such as under sections 4 to 6 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956, then it would fall under class (III). If on the other hand the landlord himself in order to safeguard his own property wants to effect the repairs, then this ground would fall in class (II).

(2.) The application for eviction by the appellant landlord against the responoent tenant was filed on the following ground :-

(3.) It is clear that the petition for eviction was based on clause (g) of the proviso to section 14(1) read with sub-section (8) of section 14 which lays down further conditions to be satisfied before which eviction could be ordered by the Controller there under.