JAGDISH PRASAD Vs. HAMID HUSSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of Second Appeal from Order No. 128-D of 1962 and the connected appeals fSecond Appeals from Order Nos. 129-D to 146-D of 1962 and 168-Dof 1962).

(2.) The appellants, Jagdish Prasad and Rajendra Ku-nlr, in all these casps acquired the property in dispute, which is known as Katra Qudratullah in Gali Chulewali, Sadar ^ izar, Delhi in December 1958. Twenty persons were tenants in this property. Since the property is stated to be old and at dated the appellants wanted to rebuild and reconstruct the sime. For-this purpose they got the plans prepared which were duly sanctioned by the Delhi Municipal Corporation on 21st April 1960. It is also not disputed that estimates had been prepared and that the aopallants had the necessary funds for carrying o it the reconstruction. In October i960 they applied for eviction of all the twenty tenants under section 14 (1) (g) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 Eviction can be ordered under that provision if the premises are required bona fide by the landlord for the purpose of building or rebuilding or making thereto any substantial additions or alterations and that such building or rebuilding or addition or alteration cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated. The Rent Controller found almost everything in favour of the appellants except that certain evidence had been adduced which showed that the Municipal Corporation had rejected the plans on 28th April 1961 and, therefore, according to the Rent Controller, the appellants had failed to satisfy the requirements of section 14 (1) (g), read with section 14 (8), which says that no order for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made on the ground spacifide in clause (g) of the proviso to sub-section (1), unless the Controller is satisfied that the proposed reconstruction will not radically alter the purpose for which the premises were let or that such radical alteration is in the public interest and that the plans and estimates of such reconstruction have been properly prepared and that necessary funds for the purpose are available with the landlord. Before the Rent Control Tribunal to whom the appeals were taken, it was urged on behalf of the appellants 'thatsection 14 (8) did not enjoin that the plan of the proposed construction should be duly sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation and all that was required was that there should be a properly prepared plan. This contention was repelled and according to the Tribunal the words "properly prepared plan" meant a plan duly sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation and not a privately prepared plan. The Tribunal felt that the sanctioned plan. Exhibit A. W. 4/2, had ceased to be a duly prepared plan as the period for which the sanction was obtained had elapsed. The present appeals have been instituted against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal in all these cases which was to the same effect and by which the order of the Rent Controller had been affirmed.

(3.) Owing to the death of the tenants in Second Appeals from order Nos. 137-D of 1962, 144-D of 1962 and 161-D of 1962 Mr. B. C. Misra has made a request that he may be allowed to withdraw these appeals as also the eviction applications with liberty to take eviction proceedings against the persons in occupation of the premises in those cases. In view of the entire circumstances, I accord the necessary permission and, therefore, these appeals are dismissed as also the eviction applications stand rejected.