KALI CHARAN Vs. VIDYAWANTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition by the tenant is directed against the eviction order dated 19-5-1981 passed by the Rent Controller, Delhi. Predecessor of the respondent-landlord had filed a petition under Section 14(l)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act for evicting the petitioner from one room and verandah of the property in dispute. The predecessor of the respondent died during the pendency of the petition and his -legal representatives were brought on the record. The case of the respondent- landlord was that they had a large family consisting of the landlord owner besides his wife, 9 daughters and two sons with their families.' In all they had three rooms in their possession which were insufficient for their residence. It was also alleged that the premises were let for residential purposes.

(2.) The petition was contested by the tenant. It was pleaded that the premises were let for residential-cum-commercial purpose. The petition had been filed with mala fide object of increasing rent because the respondents had been reletting the premises even during the pendency of the petition and immediately prior to that.

(3.) The learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the premises had been let for residential purpose only and that there was no collateral purpose of filing the petition. The portion in occupation of the petitioner was insufficient for a large family which at that point of time was, two sons with their families, two unmarried daughters, the widow of the original petitioner and the requirement for six married daughters. Ordinarily, no fault could be found with the impugned order. However, ' I have been taken through the evidence on record. The petitioner who appeared as RWI deposed that two portions of the property in dispute fell vacant, one in 1974 and the other in 1977. He has given the names of the tenants who were occupying the portions previously as also the names of the new tenants who were inducted in 1974 and again in 1977. He has not been cross-examined on this point. ' In the circ'imstances, it has to be accepted that two new tenants were inducted by the respondents one in 1974 and the other in 1977. The respondents had applied for permission to file proceedings for eviction before the Slum Authorities in 1973 and the present petition was filed in 1976. Therefore, both the cases of reletting are of importance as the same have arisen during the pendency of the proceedings. If the respandents can relet the premises during the pendency of the proceedings, it cannot be said that their requirernsnt for the premises in dispute is bona fide. The premises in dispute are only one room and verandah while the reletting has obviously been of a bigger portion. The learned Rent Controller did not take this statement into consideration and in these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the respondents must fail on this short ground.