P S DEVGUN Vs. S P WALIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been filed under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 59 of 1958, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), by the landlord appellant against the appellate order of Mr. G. C. Jain, Rent Control Tribunal, dated 28th July, 1973, by which he had allowed the appeal and reversed the order of Mr. Jaspal Singh, Controller, da,ted 1st November, 1972, finally dismissing the eviction petition, which had been filed by the appellant against the tenant respondent.

(2.) The property in depute consists of first floor of house No. R-120. Greater Kailash, which had been let out to the respondent tenant on 22nd October, 1967 for a period of two years on a rent of Rs. 320 per month. The appellant landlord came to Delhi for study leave for the period from 15th January, 1969. On 14th July, 1970, which is about 18 months after his arrival in Delhi, the landlord served a notice on the respondent requiring him to vacate the premises on 31st August, 1970. Not getting any response, the appellant landlord filed the petition for eviction on 6th October, 1970 on the ground of bona fide personal need for residence being the ground specified in cla,use (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act. The allegation made-in support of his claim was that he was an Army Officer, who was likely to be transferred from place to place and so he needed the premises in dispute for residence of himself and members of his family, which consisted of his wife, a minor son and a minor daughter, besides his mother. The respondent tenant contested the petition and urged that the same had been filed mala fide on account of the dispute, which arose in April. 1970 out of the demand of the tenant respondent for a servant quarter or proportionate reduction in rent since the old existing servant quarter had been demolished. It was also contended by the tenant that the landlord appellant claimed enhancement of rent on account of further renewal of the lease. The tenant respondent also pointed out that the ground floor of the tenanted property, which had been let out by the appellant earlier on a monthly rent of Rs. 550 had fallen vacant on 31st August, 1970 (which was the date on which the period of notice of the respondent had expired), but the landlord appellant had let out the said premises again on 1st September, 1970 on a higher rent of Rs. 675 per month. Furthermore, during the pendency of the eviction petition, it has transpired that the same ground floor again fell vacant and on 10th May, 1972 it was again let out to the Chief Administrative Officer, Ministry of Defence, on a rate of rent which the respondent has alleged to be still higher.

(3.) The claim of the appellant landlord found favour with the controller and he passed an order for eviction. On appeal, the Rent Control Tribunal came to the contrary conclusion and found that the landlord had failed to establish that he bona fide needed the premises in dispute for his residence or that the accommodation already available with him was not reasonably suitable. As a result, the eviction petition was dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal by the appellate order under challenge in this appeal.