ABDUL HAMID Vs. NUR MOHD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first appellant is the tenant and the second appellant is his younger brother. The respondent had filed an eviction petition on 6-10-1970 under section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the grounds of:

(2.) Since interference is possible under section 39 of the Act only if there is any substantial question of law arising in the appellant's favour the arguments proceeded only on the basis of the findings of the courts below. It may be sufficient, therefore, to notice the relevant findings of the Tribunal on only the questions argued in this appeal.

(3.) After observing that the landlord had simply pleaded in para 18(3) in the eviction petition that he was the owner of the premises in dispute and needed the premises bona fide for his residence and for his family members who are dependent upon him, the learned Tribunal noted that the appellants have not been taken by surpise by reason of the landlord not having specifically stated that he had no other reasonably suitable accommodation. In other words, the learned Tribunal understood the said pleading as complying with the requirements of section 14(1)(e) of the Act and, as I understand the learned Tribunal that it was not necessary to "re-state" as. a ground in the eviction petition the expressions employed in the statute.