KHEM CHAND RATAWAL Vs. BABU LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admit.

(2.) At request of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal. The petitioner / landlord filed an eviction petition against the original tenant under Section 14(1)(j) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ( for short, 'the said Act' ) seeking eviction on ground of causing substantial damage to the premises. The relevant provisions of the said Act are as under : "14. Protection of tenant against eviction."- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any court or Controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant: Provided that the Controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely :- (j) that the tenant has, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, caused or permitted to be caused substantial damage to the premises; (10) No order for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made on the ground specified in clause (j) of the proviso to sub-second (1) if the tenant, within such time as may be specified in this behalf by the Controller, carries out repairs to the damage caused to the satisfaction of the Controller or pays to the landlord such amount by way of compensation as the Controller may direct."

(3.) The petition was filed in August, 1997 and at the stage of evidence, a compromise was arrived at between the parties and orders were passed on 26.07.1999. The original tenant Shri Babu Lal has since passed away and was at the relevant time represented through his Attorney Shri Madan Pal, who was his son. Shri Madan Pal made the following statement: