SATISH CHANDER Vs. SHIV DUTT AND PREM NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents own suit premises. It was let out to petititioner in Sep., 69. At that time Shiv Dutt was a clerk in CPWD, N. Delhi while Prem Nath was in Madhya Pradesh. Former was occupying Govt. accommodation. Within 2 years the tenant sued him for fixation of Standard rent. Soon after respdts. sued him for eviction which case dragged on till 1976 when respdts. withdrew the same with permission to file afresh. They then filed the instant case on 23.7.77 alleging that they had bought the premises from the Min. of Rehabilitation. It was residential and was in a residential area and was let out to the tenant for residential purposes only; that Respdt. 1 had been transferred to Nepal and lost Govt. accommodation and on return has been refused Govt. accommodation as he owns tenanted premises and is living with a relation and badly needs tenanted premises. Tenant was granted leave to defend contending that premises were let to him for office-cum- residential purposes and he had been using portion of the same for his office; that the landlords do not require premises and they have filed case for enhancement of rent and that they also wish to sell the same and had even offered the same to him. Additional Rent Controller (ARC) allowed the eviction petition and tenant filed revision in the High Court on 2 points ; that the petition is mala fide and that the premises were let for office-cum- residence purposes and in fact major portion of same was used for office purposes.] (After giving above facts judgment proceeds).

(2.) Coming to 1st point it is true that premises was let out on 7.9 69 thru' an advertisement. Both parties have not produced the advertisement. It is also true that the letting was oral. It is also in evidence that earlier Shri K.C. Hazarika had been let out the premises who was a Government employee at the rent of Rs. 225.00 per month and after he vacated the property in dispute, it was let out to the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 200.00 per month.

(3.) It may be noticed that it was the petitioner who filed an application for fixation of standard rent within two years of the letting out of the premises that means he must have filed the application before the expiry of two years and it was in 1972 when the first eviction petition was filed by the landlord for eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent and on the ground of bona fide personal requirement of the landlords but the same was permitted to be withdrawn by the Additional Rent Controller with permission to file a fresh petition for the same cause of action subject to the payment of costs to the opposite party. The tenant refused to accept the costs and the landlords had deposited the same on 21.12.76.