CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Vs. GOKAL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in this Court, the Central Bank of India Limited, is a tenant under Gokal Chand Respondent 1n the premises in dispute. The landlord made an application for ejectment of the tenant on the ground of personal bona fide requirement. Two miscellaneous applications were made by the tenant, the particulars whereof have been set out in t",e order of ths Rent Controller Delhi. In the first application, it was said that Partap Chand, whose requirement of the premises in occupation of the landlord had been made a ground for ejectment, had ample accommodation at 51 Rajpur Road, Delhi and therefore it was necessary to appoint a Commissioner to prepare a plan of the house. In the second application, the tenant claimed that t accmmodation in the whole of the house situated at 17, Alipur Road, Delhi, where the landlord resides is more than three rooms as claimed by the landlord and, consequently the landlord is not justified in saying that he bona fide requires premises in dispute for his residence. By this application, it was prayed that,-"It is therefore, in the interest of justice most humbly prayed that a commission be appointed preferably a draughtsman or an engineer to go to 17, Alipur Road, Delhi, and to prepare and file a detailed plan of this premises." The prayer in the other application, mentioned above, was,-"It is, therefore, prayed that a commission- a draughtsman or an engineer-be appointed at the expense of the respondent to prepare and file a detailed plan of the building 51. Rajpur Road, Delhi." With respect to the application regarding 51, Rajpur Road, the Rent Controller decided that preparation of plan was not necessary in the circumstances of the case and could not, in any case, be allowed after the parties had closed their evidence and the case had been pending for a long time. Regarding the other application, the Rent Controller said:-"It is contended on behalf of the tenant that the accommodation in the whole of the house at 17, Alipur Road, Delhi, is much more than three rooms and a local commissioner may be appointed to prepare a plan of the whole of the house. The petitioner came into the witness. box and the respondent had full opportunity to cross-examine him regarding the extent of accommodation in his prossession. He has stated that the other portions of 17, Alipur Road, Delhi, are in possession of other persons. Previously also such an application was made by the tenant which was disallowed by me vide my order dated 7.3.1954. I see no further reason to review my previous order and allow this application." Aggrieved by this decision, the tenant appealed to the Rent Control Tribunal, The Tribunal, following the dscision of this Court in South Asia Industries Private Limited v. S B. Sarup Singh\ held that the order of the Rent Controller was not an order made under the Delhi Rent Control Act (59 of 1958) and, therefore, not appealable.

(2.) The matter came up before me for hearing and I felt that there was some conflict between the decisions of D. K. Mahajan, J. in Pokar Mal v. Prem Nath and others," and H. R. Khanna, J. in Overseas Corporation Private Limited v. Faqir Chand",S. A. 0. 20 I'D of 1963 decided on 18th May, 1964. Inview of this conflict, the matter was referred to a larger B.;nch and this is how the appeal has come up before us for decision.

(3.) The main point arising for decision in this case is the ambit and scope of section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which reads as under-