ANAND GOPAL JHANGIR Vs. K D BERI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The eviction petition in the present case was filed in November 1973. The petition was filed jointly by four petitioners who are real brothers being sons of Dr.Anand Gopal Jhingran. The petitioners are the owners of property bearing No.5958, Jawahar Nagar, Delhi. The tenancy premises consists of three rooms, one kitchen and a bath room on the first floor of the said property. The petitioners' case was that the premises was let out for residential purpose and was required bona fide by them for occupation as residence for themselves and other members of their family dependent on them for purposes of residence. At the time of institution of the eviction petition the petitioners were in possession of three rooms in the said property. In fact around the same time when the present eviction petition was filed, two other eviction petitions were also filed against two other tenants, namely, Arjun Dev and S.N.Kapoor. The eviction orders were passed in all the three petitions by the Addl. Rent Controller on 24th January 1977. The tenants in all the three cases went in appeal to the Rent Control Tribunal against the decision of the Addl. Rent Controller.

(2.) The Rent Control Tribunal vide its judgment dated 15th July 1980 allowed two appeals in the cases of K.D.Beri, respondent in the present case and Arjun Dev, another tenant. The judgment was mainly based on the fact that during the pendency of the three appeals before the Tribunal the third tenant, i.e. S.N.Kapoor had vacated four rooms in the same property which had become available to the landlords. The landlords thus got in their possession total seven rooms in all. The Tribunal felt that the seven rooms were sufficient to meet the requirements of the landlords and, therefore, the eviction petitions in both the cases, i.e. K.D.Beri (present respondent) and Arjun Dev were dismissed. The landlords filed second appeals in this Court challenging the said judgment of the Rent Control Tribunal. The appeal filed by the landlords against the other tenant, i.e. Arjun Dev (S.A.O. 382/80) was allowed by this Court by its judgment dated 23rd August 1994. It is not disputed that in pursuance of the said decision of this Court tenant Arjun Dev vacated the portion of the property which was under his tenancy consisting of three rooms and handed over possession thereof to the landlords.

(3.) During the pendency of the second appeal in this Court, the appellant filed C.M. No. 1892 of 1991 under Order 41,Rule 27 Civil Procedure Code . for placing certain subsequent events before this Court for its consideration at the time of disposal of the appeal. The landlords pointed out several facts which had emerged during the pendency of present proceedings and which have bearing on the ultimate decision of the case. It was stated that all the facts which were sought to be placed before the Court were not in existence at the time of decision of the Courts below. The appellants sought permission to lead additional evidence with respect to these facts. By an order passed on 17th September 1992 this Court allowed the said application. The Addl. Rent Controller was directed to record evidence on the facts sought to be brought on record by the appellants. The respondent was given opportunity to produce rebuttal evidence confined to the facts sought to be brought on record by the appellants. The respondent also contended before this Court at the time of passing of the order dated 27th September 1992 that the other tenant Arjun Dev had left the premises in the meanwhile and the possession thereof was likely to become available to the appellants soon. The Court permitted the respondent to lead evidence with regard to this aspect. The Court also gave a right to the appellants to produce rebuttal evidence on this aspect of the case meaning thereby that the appellant could still show that the accommodation available to them in the property in suit even after the possession of portions occupied by Arjun Dev is delivered to them is not sufficient to meet their requirements. In pursuance of the said order the Addl. Rent Controller recorded the evidence of the parties and sent back the record of the case alongwith additional evidence so recorded. Two appellants appeared as witnesses to support the case of the appellants for additional accommodation in view of increase in their families.