AMAR SINGH Vs. WASHESHAR NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No. 1 in this second appeal under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, herein called'the Act,'is the owner of a house in Arya Pura, Subzi Mandi, Delhi. Accommodation consisting of a room, two kolkis, a latrine, a balcony, verandah and a courtyard on the first floor of this house had been given on rent to one Prem Singh. deceased, predecessor-in-title of the appellants and respondents Nos. 2 and 3, for residential purposes. Respondent No. 1 filed an application under section 15 (1) of the Act for Prem Singh's eviction on several grounds. The main grounds with which we are now concerned were, that neither the tenant nor any member of his family had been residing in the premises for a period of six months immediately before the date of the filing of the said eviction application, that the tenant had on or after 9th June, 1952 sublet assigned or otherwise parted with possession of the whole of the premises without obtaining consent in writing of the landlord and that the premises were bona fide required by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself and for members of his family, while he had no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.

(2.) During the pendency of the case Prem Singh died and his aforesaid legal representatives were impleaded as respondents. The Additional Controller directed eviction of the appellant's and respondents Nos. 2 and 3. An appeal by the present appellants was dismissed with costs by the Rent Control Tribunal. This brought the appellants to this Court in second appeal.

(3.) Miss C.M. Kohli, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted at the outset that the eviction petition should have been dismissed in the absence of a notice terminating the tenancy. The Tribunal had stated in its order under appeal that in the absence of the plea of non-service of notice of termination, in the written statement, the appellants could not be allowed to urge the same in appeal. The written statement was first filed by Prem Singh on October 26, 1964, where it was stated that the alleged notice was not legal and was of no consequence, though it had been duly replied to. The plea of insufficiency of notice of termination had thus been raised at the earliest opportunity by the tenant, although in an amended written statement filed by the legal representatives of the deceased tenant, this objection had not been repeated. Exhibit A.W. 15/1 is a copy of the notice dated September 7, 1962 which was proved to to have been served on Prem Singh, the tenant.