A.C. GULATI Vs. S. S. SAWHNEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated June 2, 1973 affirming the order dated 2-9-1972 of the Rent Controller by which the eviction application of the Respondent landlord has been granted.

(2.) The premises in dispute are a portion of house No. 18(C) Kalkaji, New Delhi. The premises were let out to the Appellant on a monthly rent of Rs. 300.00. The portion in which the landlord is living is shown in red in the plan Ex. AW2/6 consisting of two rooms bath, kitchen and one other room along with the boundary of the house. The eviction of the appellant was sought on the ground of personal bonafide requirement of the landlord. It had also been pleaded that the appellant had converted a part of the premises into a commercial one, and that the tenancy was for a fixed period and on the expiry of said period the appellant had become a statutory tenant and that though no notice to terminate the tenancy was required, yet a notice had been given to the appellant. The tenancy had been admitted by the appellant but the requirement of bona tide was disputed. It is also denied that the tenancy was for a fixed period. The receipt of notice was admitted though it was stated that it was not valid. The Additional Rent 'Controller held that the tenancy was for a fixed period of 11 months and the same stood determined on the expiry of the period. He also held that though no notice was necessary, still a notice Which was given was a valid notice. He, however, held against the landlord on the ground of mis-user, but as he found in favour of the landlord on personal bonafide need, he granted the application for eviction. The tenant feeling aggrieved against that order filed an appeal to the Rent Control Tribunal.

(3.) The only point argued before the Tribunal was whether the landlord required the premises for his personal bonafide need and whether the tenancy had been validly terminated. On both the points the Tribunal found against the appellant and has affirmed the finding of the Additional Rent Controller. Aggrieved against that the appellant has come up on appeal to this court.