SURAJ PARK ASH BALI Vs. PARMANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment of the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, dated December 8, 1964. By the said judgment the Rent Control Tribunal confirmed the decision of the Rent Controller allowing the petition of the landlord for eviction of Suraj Parkash appellant. The Tribunal held that the accommodation already in possession of Parma Nand respondent-landlord was not sufficient and he, therefore, bonafide required the premises in question for his use and the use of dependent members of his family.

(2.) Mr. Yogeshwar Dayal, the learned counsel for the respondent, has taken a preliminary objection that the appeal is barred by time. As I have mentioned earlier the judgment under appeal was delivered on 8-12-1964. The appellant made an application for a certified copy of the judgment of the Rent Control Tribunal on 2-2-1905 and the copy was ready on 8-3-1965. On the same day, that is 2-2-1965, the appellant applied for a certified copy of the judgment of the Rent Controller and the same was ready on 15-3-1965. The present appeal was filed on March 15,1965, but the same was returned by the office on 16-3-1965 as the same was not accompanied by a certified copy of the judgment of the Rent Controller. The appeal was refiled with the certified copy of the judgment of the Rent Controller on March 25, 1965. Mr. Yogeshwar Dayal submits that rule 2 has been added in Punjab to Order 42, Civil Procedure Code, which is as under :-

(3.) Regarding the merits of the case Mr. Darbari Lal Khanna submits that the landlord had failed to prove that the premises were bona fide required by him. He has drawn my attention to the evidence of Parma Nand landlord wherein he had stated that in case he was given possession of the premises in dispute he would invite his three independent married sons and their families also to come and stay with him. According to the learned counsel that shows that the landlord did not bona fide require any additional accomedition and he ewas only pressing for eviction because he wanted to accomedate his three sons whose needs could not be taken into consideration . The perusal of the judgment of the Rent Control Tribunal would show that it has not taken the needs of his three sons into consideration and has based its decision on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord, his wife and his two dependent children. Apart from this being a pure question of fact it cannot be said that the matter raises any substantial question of law justifying mterfrencc under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The appeal, therfore, fails and is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.