SHRI B. PRASAD Vs. SHRI RAM DEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of two second appeals under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. I will deal with a third connected appeal by a separate judgment. All these three cases were disposed of by a common judgment delivered by the Rent Controller, on appeal the three cases were decided by the Tribunal by a single common judgment. These three cases arise from three applications for ejectment instituted by the landlord, Shri Ram Dev against three of his tenants. The cases were tried together by the Rent Controller, who dismissed all three cases. On appeal, the Rent Control Tribunal accepted the three appeals and passed orders of ejectment against the tenants in all the cases. The three tenants have now filed separate appeals to this Court, which I have heard together. As the points in S.A.O. No. 256 and S.A.O. 257 of 1971 are common, they are being disposed of by this Judgment. As the facts involved in S.A.O. No. 281 of 1971 are slightly different, the same is being dealt with by a separate judgment.

(2.) As far as these two appeals are concerned they arise out of ejectment applications brought by the landlord, Shri Ram Dev against B. Prashad (S.A.O. No. 256 of 1971) and K.G.V. Iyer (S.A.O. No. 257 of 1971). These two tenants have one room each situated in the main building of house No. 8574, Basti Ara Kashan, New Delhi. The landlord is in occupation of several rooms on the first and second floors of the same building. According to the landlord the premises in question were bonafide required by the landlord on account of personal bonafide necessity for himself and his family. Several points were pleaded in support of the ejectment applications. One point was that the wife of the landlord, Shrimati Shanti Devi was an old lady suffering from high blood pressure, who had been advised by doctors to avoid exertion and, therefore, living on the ground floor had become essential for her as living on the higher floors was hazardous and dangerous to her life; the second point was, that the petitioner's son had recently married and therefore needed a separate set of rooms; the third was that some accommodation was required by the landlord for use as an office as he himself was 73 years old and could not have his office away from his residence.

(3.) The Rent Controller dismissed the applications on the ground that the accommodation available with the landlord was adequate, and one of the other rooms on the ground floor could easily be occupied by his wife. It was also found during the proceedings that the landlord had contained vacant possession of one room from another tenant which could satisfy his requirements.