SULTAN SINGH Vs. JAI CHAND JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a landlord's second appeal, his apolication for eviction of the tenant having been dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal reversing the finding of the Rent Controller, who was of the opinion that he had made out a case of personal bona fide requirement by him of the accommodation with the tenant. A second appeal lies only on a substantial question of law according to sub-section (2) of section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The learned counsel for the tenant urges that the finding of the Rent Control Tribunal whether the requirement of the premises for personal occupation claimed by the landlord is born Me or not, is a finding of fact cannot be interfered with in the second appeal Normally this is so. The learned counsel for the landlord points out first that the Rent Control Tribunal has erred in basing its finding that on the first floor of the house, in which practically half of tha ground-floor is with the tenant, there are three rooms in front of the room in the occupation of the landlord which are also with him, but it is the statement of the tenant himself that those three rooms, marked by red pencil as A-B-C in the plan A. I, are in fact with the family of Jagmindar Lal, a son of the landlord, who is emoloyed in Bombay. The learned counsel presses that this is a mistake of fact made by the Rent Control Tribunal, and justifies interference in this second appeal. His second ground is that the landlord has a third son named Prem Chand, who at the time the matter was before the Rent Control Tribunal, was under training in the Agra Agricultural College as a Research Scholar having been sent there by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, and he was there only for training and wis not permanetly emoloved there An affidavit to this effect had been filed by the landlord but the learned counsel says that the negative in the application was not read because the word has come partly under a seal, which is true. The affidavit of the landlord shows that his third son Prem Chand was not permanently employed in the Agra Agricultural College, but was there only temporarily as a Research Scholar. These two mistikes of fact, the learned counsel urges, are sufficient to justify interference with the order of the Rent Control Tribunal.

(2.) The house has two storeys and on top of the second storey there are three Barsatis with a latiine and open roof. That part of house is obviously used as sleeping accommodation mostly during summer. So that what his to be considered is the accommodatiobn on the groud-floor and on the first floor On the ground floor there is portion marked red which is with the teaint. there is portion marked green which is with another son, named Tarlok Chand of the lamnd;ord and there is a room, marked yellow with letter 'C', with dimension of 13'x7', which is in the possession of the landlord. On the first-floor, as already stated, portion,. marked by red pencil A-B-C and also with a blue lining is in the possession of the family of Jagminder Lal son of the landlord. The,remaining portion is in the possession of the landlord which consists of a store, 7'x 5, a. room, 12'X7, a bath and a kitchen. In front of the store and the bath there are verandahs, and in front of the room? there is anther room through the middle of these three a blue line in drawn, which is a line of division and on either side of the line is shown a passage. This accommodation the Rent Control Tribunal has found sufficient for the landlord and his wife. Two of his sons, namely Jamander Lal and Tarlok Chand, are indepsnde".t earning members and their families are living in separate portions of this very house. Those are not found dependants of the landlord. The question then only remains with regard to the third son Prem Chand. Ha has come back from Agra and it is admitted at this stage by both the parties that he is these days employed at Ghaziabad. The landlord says that he was married some five or six months back and is at present drawing a salary of Rs 1000.00 per mensem. In C. L. Davar v. Amur Nith Kapur it has been decided by my Lord, the Chief Justice, that the term 'dependant' must be construed as meining somebody not wholly dependent or self supporting and in a position to set up a separate residence. The third son Prem Chand of the landlord who, otherw se in different circumstances, may have been his dependent, cannot in the circumstances be said to be his dependent, though he has recently been married, because he is self-supporting and in a position to set up a separate residence. No doubt, according to the admission of the parties at this stage, he is residing with his father, but that still does not make him dependent as that expression in used in that Act. So that he and his family are also to be dropped from consideration.

(3.) The result then Is that what is left for consideration is the landlord and his wife. The Rent Control Tribunal is correct in pointing out that in the eviction application the landlord has never claimed eviction of the tenant for his personal requirement in the sense as the requirement of himself and his wife. What he has stated is that he requires the vacation of the portion with the tenant for himself and his family. There are two ways of looking at this. The word 'family' may be taken to include not only his wife but also his sons and their families. If looked at in this manner the three sons and their families are to be excluded as explained. This leaves him and his wife. The other other way to look at is that what he meant by his family was he himself and his wife. If so, the accommodation to which reference has already been made has been found as a fact to be sufficient for them, and the finding of the Rent Control Tribunal that the claim of the landlord is not made in good faith cannot be intefered.