KANWAR SHIV CHARAN SINGH Vs. S SANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision filed by Kanwar Shiv Charan Singh under section 35 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act 1952 (No. XXXVIII of 1952) is directed against the judgment and decree of learned Additional District Judge, Delhi affirm- ing on appeal the decision of the trial court by which the petitioner's suit for ejectment of Sant Singh defendant respondent from the premises in dispute was dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner and landlord of house No. 8315 built on plot No. 17 situated on Rohtak Road, Delhi. The Respondent 1s occupying the ground floor of that house as a tenant of the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 250.00 The petitioner filed a suit on 30th October 1958 against the respondent for ejectment from the premises in dispute on the allegations that Rs. 750.00 as arrears of rent from July to September 1958 were due from the respondent, and the petitioner bonafide required the premises in dispute for occupation as residence for himself and his family as he had no other suitable accommodation Arears of rent were duly paid by the respondent. It was denied by the respondent that the premises in dispute were required by the petitioner for his occupation. It was also averred that the petitioner had other suitable accomodation with him and that his only object was to enhance the rent and coerce the defendant by filling this suit following issue was framed by the trial court :-

(3.) Clause (2) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 13 of Act XXXVIII of 1952 gives the circumstances in which an order for ejectment on the ground of personal requirement can be made. According to this clause an order for ejectment can be made if the premises let for residential purposes are required bonafide by the landlord who is the owner of such premises for occupation as a residence for himself or his family and that he has no other suitable accommodation. It is not disputed that the premises in dispute were let for residential parposes. The lower appellate court while deciding the case against the petitioner held that he did not require the premises boafide for his own residence as he had no honest intention to occupy them.