SAVITRI DEVI ABDALI Vs. RAM BHAJ DATTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 59 of 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), has been filed by the legal representatives of the deceased tenant and is directed against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal, dated 12th February, 1975, by which the appeal of the appellants has been dismissed and the order of the Additional Controller, dated 19th March, 1974, ordering eviction of the appellants on the ground of bona fide personal necessity mentioned in clause (e) of the proviso to subsection (1) of section 14 of the Act has been affirmed, with time till 31st March, 1975 to vacate. After its expiry, the appellants have, while there was no stop in operation, been dispossessed and they are out of possession for considerably long time and have probably acquired other residential accommodation.

(2.) The material facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The premises in dispute are G-44, Kalkaji, New Delhi and they were let out to the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants on a rent of Rs. 51.00 per month. It appears that the lease of the land on which the premises are situated was granted by the President of India for a period of 99 years commencing from 14th February, 1950. The lease deed was, however, executed in favour of Bhupinder Nath Datta, S/o of Ram Nath Datta. He is admittedly the brother of the respondent before me, namely, Ram Bhaj Datta, S/o Ram Nath Datta. The lease deed is Ex. AW3/1 dated 4th March, 1967. The superstructures erected on the said leasehold land were conveyed by the President absolutely on 4th March, 1967 by Ex. AW3/2 for a sum more than Rs. 8,000. The conveyance is also in the name of the respondent's brother.

(3.) On 20th May, 1969, aforesaid Bhupinder Nath, brother of the respondent, executed a deed of disclaimer. This deed recites that the aforesaid property (E-44 Kalkaji) was purchased by the (first party) respondent before me benami in the name of his brother and the entire consideration for the sale and also costs and expenses had been provided by the respondent herein and furher the respondent had been incurring expenditure in the maintenance and repairs, alterations and additions in the said property since I 4th February, 1950 and the original lease deed, receipt for the rent and other relevant documents were all in possession of the respondent. It is further recited that in reality the brother of the respondent did not have any interest, claim or title in the property and the same exclusively belonged to the first party, viz., the respondent herein. Consequently, the deed declared, renounced and released the claims, rights, title and interest of the brother of the respondent in favour of the respondent herein and established that the respondent was the real owner possessing all the rights of an owner. It was also declared that the property had not been encumbered, charged or affected in any manner. The document was presented to registration on 16th June, 1969 and was entered in the index on 22nd July, 1969. It is Ex. AW2/3.