R DAVID Vs. KANTA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against order of the RentControl Tribunal dated 10/07/1987, by which he dismissed the applicationof the tenant-appellant seeking setting aside of the eviction order dated 25/05/1983, made in Rent Control Appeal No. 109/83 by the Rent ControlTribunal.

(2.) Facts of the case, in brief, are that Mustaq Ram-petitioner No. 2(since deceased) was the owner of Property No. 34, Krishna Market, LajpatNagar-1, New Delhi and the property was being managed by his marrieddaughter Smt. Kanta Rani. Smt. K.anta Rani had let out the premises inquestion comprising of one room, verandah, temporary store, bath and W.C.located on the rear portion of the said property to the appellant-R. David ona monthly rent of Rs.100.00per month vide rent note dated 14/11/1967. The eviction petition was brought by Smt. Kanta Rani and MustaqRam against the tenant on the grounds of eviction covered by Clauses (a) &(e) of proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Actpleading that in an earliar case for eviction brought by Smt. Kanta Raniagainst the tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent, the tenant had beengiven the benefit of Section 14(2) but the tenant has again neither paid nortendered the arrears of rent of the period 1/08/1977, onwards despiteservice of notice of demand dated 19/12/1977 and as he has been inarrears for more than three months consecutively, thus he was not entitled tohave benefit of Section 14(2) again. In respect of the ground of bona fiderequirement, it was pleaded that Mustaq Ram-petitioner No. 2, being theowner of the property in question, for whose benefit the property was beingheld, had no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation in Delhi andthus, he bona fide requires the demised premises for occupation as residencefor himself and members of his family as he intended to shift to Delhi andsettle in his own house.

(3.) The eviction petition was contested by the tenant. Vide judgmentdated January 22, 1983, the Additional Rent Controller had passed theeviction order on the ground of non-payment of rent but the ground ofbona fide requirement was negatived holding that Mustaq Ram had not beenable to satisfy the Court regarding his intention to shift to Delhi. MustaqRam was based in Hoshiarpur District at all relevant times.