HAVELI SINGH Vs. HARDEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Hardevi, Respondent 1n this Court, is the occupant of a portion of house No. 6634-36 situate in Ihata Kidara, Bara Hindu Kao, Delhi. Haveli Singh petitioner purchased this house on 4th November, 1955, in public auction from the Rehabilitation Department. The sale was confirmed on 7th December, 1958, and the sale deed Exhibit P. 1. executed on 22nd April, 1958. The sale was to take effect from 3rd January 1957. Haveli Singh (hereafter referred to as the landlord) filed the present suit for eviction of Hardevi (hereafter referred to as the tenant) inter alia on the grounds of non-payment of rent, bonafide personal requirement by the landlord for himself and the members of his family, and subletting by the tenant. The trial Court passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff-landlord for recovery of Rs. 90.00 being the arrears of rent claimed, but rejected the prayer for ejectment. The appeal of the landlord was dismissed by the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Delhi, by his judgment dated the 20th May, 1959, and the present revision petition under section 35 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, is directed against the said judgment.

(2.) The learned Senior Subordinate Judge took the view that (1) the tenant having deposited the arrears of rent in accordance with the requirement of section 13 (2) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, he could not be evicted on the plea of non-payment of rent, and (2) the defendant being a person to whom the provisions of section 29 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, apply, she could not be evicted for a period of two years on the plea of bonafide personal requirement by reason of the said section 29. On behalf of the petitioner it has been contended that once it is found that the person in occupation has neither paid nor tendered, the whole amount of the arrears of rent due after the date of the transfer of the premises within one month of the date on which a notice of demand has been served on him by the transferee in the manner provided in section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the protection conferred on the ocoupant by the said section 29 stands withdrawn and such occupant loses the immunity against eviction as provided in the said section. In short, the argument is that once an occupant has failed to tender or pay the arrears of rent in accordT.nce with clause (a) of proviso to said section 29 he is no longer entitled to the benefit of the slid provision because such non-payment forfeits the benefits allowed to the occupant. It is further said that even if by reason of the occupant depositing rent under section 13 (2) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, no order for eviction could bs passed I under that Act still such an order could be made on the ground of bona fide personal requirement. So far as section 29 is concerned, the occupant can be evicted even before the expiry of two years if he has committed any of the defaults mentioned in clauses (a), (b) and (e) to the proviso of section 29. That being so I think the petitioner is right when he says that the occupant loses the benefit of section 29. No doubt, the Senior Subordinate Judge rightly held that the occupant could avoid eviction order by depositing the rent on or before the first date of hearing but, in my opinion, he was not right in holding that he could not be evicted even on the ground of bonafide personal requirement. I think, an occupant who has lost the benefit of section 29 can be evicted even before the expiry of two years on any of the grounds provided in the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952. The trial Court held against the landlord on the question of bona fide personal requirement but the Senior Subordinate Judge did not give a decision thereon becau- se of the construction placed by him on section 29. In these circumstances, the matter must go back to the Senior Subordinate Judge for pronouncing upon the other pleas of the landlord in support of ejectment. Of course, he will also have to consider as to whether or not the tenant hac forfeited the benefit available to her under section 29 of the Displa ced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, by reason of default in payment or tendering the arrears of rent in spite of notice of demand served in the manner provided under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. That would be so because the learned Senior Subordinate Judge has not decided the question as to whether or not a proper notice was given to the tenant.

(3.) In the result, the petition succeeds as indicated above and the matter is sent back to the learned Senior Subordinate Judge for disposal in accordance with law. The parties will bear their own costs. They will appear before the Senior Subordinate Judge on 25th January, 1966.