SUKHBIR SINGH Vs. DAYA SHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The father of the respondents late Shri Bharat Singh was the owner of property bearing No.2473, Gali No.9, Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, which devolved on the respondent No.1. The premises were let out to late Shri Sant Singh consisting of one room, latrine and bath on the ground floor. On the demise of Shri Sant Singh, the petitioners and respondents 2 to 7 being his legal heirs claimed to have become the tenants.

(2.) The dispute between the landlord and tenant has a chequered history. Late Shri Bharat Singh is stated to have terminated the tenancy in the year 1972 and since the premises fell in the slum area, petition was filed before the Competent Authority (Slum) for permission to file eviction petition. The tenant Shri Sant Singh passed away during the pendency of this petition and late Shri Bharat Singh filed a civil suit for possession against his legal heirs in the year 1973. Shri Bharat Singh passed away in the year 1975. In 1976, the question of inheritance of tenancy in a residential premises was decided by the Apex Court and in view of the changed legal position, the suit for possession was withdrawn.

(3.) The respondent No.1 having become owner of the tenanted premises in pursuance to the Will of late Shri Bharat Singh filed a fresh petition before the Competent Authority (Slum) and the permission was granted in December 1978. The respondent No.1 filed two eviction petitions. The first petition was under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) for bonafide requirement of the premises while the other petition was filed on various grounds under Section 14(1)(a), (b), (c ), (d), (h) and (j) of the said Act. The eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the said Act was dismissed by the Additional Rent Controller on 22.1.1987 on account of the conclusion reached that the premises were not required by the respondents bonafide considering the size of his family and the purpose of letting was also not residential. The eviction petition filed on the other ground was, however, allowed on some grounds by the Additional Rent Controller on 20.1.1997. The petitioners and respondent No.1 aggrieved by the same on different accounts filed appeals before the Rent Control Tribunal and the appeals were disposed of by the impugned order dated 18.11.1999. It is this order, which is sought to be challenged in the present proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.