LAKSHMI DEVI Vs. MAMLESHWAR PERSHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Mamleshwar Prasad, the respondent herein, filed a petition under the Delhi Rent Control Act seeking eviction of the tenant Jagat Narainfrom premises described as 3173, Phatak NanakChand, Mohalla Dassan, Delhi, inter-alia, on the grounds (a) that the tenant has not paid the rent from 1-7-1967; (b) has sub-let, assigned or parted with possession of the tenanted premises without the consent in writing of the landlord to Partap Narain Seth, Kailash Naiain Seth, sons of Laxmi Narain Seth and Sat Narain Seth, Deep Narain Seth and Raghubir Narain Seth sons of Jai Narain Seth, respondents 2 to 6 to the petition; (e) that the demised premises are required bonafide by the landlord for his own occupation; and (d) that the tenant Jagat Narain had built his own house at Q-7 Model Town, Delhi and he had already shifted to the said house.

(2.) The petition was contested by all the respondents. The respondent No. I denied to have sub-let or parted with possession of the demised premises to respondents 2 to 6. The respondents pleaded that the demised premises were taken on rent in 1933 by Jagat Narain and his brothers Laxmi Narain and Jai Narain and that since the very inception of the tenancy the respondents are the joint tenants of the suit premises. (Respondents 2 and 3 are the sons of Laxmi Narain who had died sometime in 1944. Respondents 4 to 6 are the sons of Jai Narain who died in 1962). Jagat Narain (respondent No. I to the petition) stated that he is a co-owner of the house at Model Town and one of his sons was in possession of the said house. The respondents pleaded that the petitioner-landlord is a permanant resident of Indore and he does not require the suit premises for his own occupation. They further pleaded that the demised premises were let out for business-cum-residential purpose and since the very inception of the tenancy they are being used for the said purpose. The respondents further pleaded that all the arrears of the rent upto the end of November 1970 had been paid to the petitioner-landlord and no rent was due to him. They further pleaded that the rent for December 1970 was sent to him by money order but he had refused to accept it.

(3.) The Addl. Rent Controller passed an order for eviction against the respondents on two grounds : (1) that the tenant Jagat Narain had sub-let the premises to respondents No. 2 to 6; and (2) that he had built a house at Model Town and he with his family was already residing in the said house. The petition for eviction on the other grounds was dismissed.