BHIM SAIN Vs. RAJ DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the tenant against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 13.10.72 by which he set aside the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 7-10-1969 and directed eviction of the appellant.

(2.) The respondent landlady on April 17, 1965 filed an application under clause (g) of Proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1959 (hereinafter called the Act) on the ground that the premises in dispute were required bonafide by the landlady for the purpose of re-building and such re-building could not be carried out without the premises being vacated. It was also alleged that the proposed reconstruction would not radically alter the purpose for which the premises were let and that the premises in dispute were in a dilapidated condition and it was in the public interest that the premises be reconstructed. It was further alleged that the reconstruction was necessary to meet the requirement of the petitioner and her family.

(3.) The appellant who is a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.75 countered the allegations. In return it was pleaded that the premises were in good condition and did not require the reconstruction. A plea of resjudicata was also raised alleging that the previous application of the landlady for eviction of the respondent on the ground of personal need under Clause (e) of Proviso to Section 14 (1) was dismissed on 5.11. 1964 and, therefore, the present application was barred by res judicata. The Additional Rent Controller who heard the matter in the first instance held that the present application moved by the landlady on 17.4.1965 was barred by the principle of res judicata as she had not included this ground in the application which was moved by her previously in 1963 and which was dismissed on 5-12-1964. The court also held that keeping in view all the surrounding circumstances the application was not bona fide one but was only as a means of getting the premises vacated somehow, and that the claim of the landlady for rebuilding is not bona fide and, therefore, the application of the landlady was liable to be rejected on this ground also. He thus dismissed the application.