JAGDISH SINGH Vs. SHYAM LAL CHARITABLE TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under Clause (i) of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, eviction of a tenant can be sought if the premises were let to him for use as a residence by reason of his being in the service or employment of the landlord, and he has ceased to be in such service or employment. Taking advantage of this provision the Shyam Lal Charitable Trust sought the eviction of the present petitioner. It was claimed that he was allotted the premises in dispute on account of his being in the service or employment of the Trust and he had become liable to be evicted on account of his having ceased to be in such service or employment. The eviction petition was dismissed by the Additional Rent Controller but in appeal the Tribunal held the ground of eviction as proved and consequently allowed the appeal and passed an order of eviction under the said provision. Aggrieved by the said order the tenant has filed this petition.

(2.) As per the learned Counsel for the petitioner the Tribunal completely misdirected himself by placing onus of proof on the petitioner, although in fact it was for the Trust to prove that the premises had been let to the petitioner for use as a residence by reason of his being in the service or employment of the Trust.

(3.) That the petitioner was in the service or employment of the Trust is not disputed. That he has ceased to be in the service or employment is also not disputed. The only question that remains to be seen is as to whether the premises in question had been let out to the petitioner for use and occupation by the respondent Trust by reason of his being in the service or employment of the Trust. The order of the Tribunal would go to show that he has appraised and analysed the evidence properly. Even otherwise the Trust has examined two witnesses, namely Sh.Trilok Nath Goel, who is the Secretary of the Trust and Sh.Rajender Kumar who is one of the Trustees of the respondent Trust. Both of them have stated in clear and unambiguous terms that the premises were let out to the present petitioner for residence on account of his being in service or employment of the respondent Trust. Of course, the present petitioner as RW-1 has denied this, but then the learned Tribunal has rightly placed reliance on the two witnesses examined by the Trust. Moreso, since it is borne out from the record that the rent charged was being deducted from the salary of the petitioner. I feel that as the evidence on the record has been analysed properly and looked into in the right perspective it is not a case calling for any interferencc. In this respect I seek to draw force from a judgment of the Supreme Court in O.T.M.O.M. Meyyappa Chettiar v. O.T.M.S.M. Kasi Viswanathan Chettiar & Anr., J.T. 1993 (4) SC 642.