P C BADHWAR Vs. LAJWANTI MALIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of two second appeals (SAO 289 of 1972 and SAO 290 of 1971) both of which have been filed under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 59 of 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), by the tenant appellant against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 16th September, 1971, by which it has allowed the landlords appeal and dismissed the crossappeal which had been filed by the tenant. The order of the Additional Controller which was the subject matter of the appeal was dated 28th August, 1969, by which a sum of Rs. 5000 had been awarded as damages to the tenant. The Tribunal on appeal set aside the order and declined to award any demages.

(2.) The material facts of the case are that P.C. Badhwar, appellant before me, was a tenant in respect of house No. C-203, Defence Colony, New Delhi, on a rent of Rs. 650 per month under the respondent landlady on the material date. The premises had, however, been let out to the appellant on 16th November, 1962 by the husband of the respondent (who has since died). On 11th May, 1965 the landlady instituted a petition for eviction of the appellant from the said premises on the ground of bona fide personal necessity mentioned in clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act. This petition was tried and on 13th May, 1966, it was decided on a compromise between the parties, as a result of which two years time was allowed to the appellant to vacate the premises and an order for eviction on the ground of bona fide personal necessity was passed in favour of the respondent landlady against the appellant. The appellant, however, vacated the premises on 19th November, 1967, that is to say about six months earlier than the time allowed. Shortly afterwards, the respondent landlady, however, let out 2/3rd portion of the premises in dispute to some stranger on a rent of Rs. 600 per month. This was urged by the appellant to be contrary to the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 19 of the Act and he, filed an application on 4th April, 1968 for restitution of possession and claiming a sum of Rs. 10,000 as damages. The factum of the respondent landlady letting out the premises before the expiry of three years mentioned in section 19(2) of the Act has been established on the record and has not been disputed. It is also not disputed that the respondent landlady did not take permission of the Controller envisaged by the statutory provision, before letting out the premises again, while she had obtained eviction on the ground of hona fide personal necessity. She had, therefore. clearly contravened the provisions of section 19(2) of the Act. The Additional Controller after recording the said finding, awarded a sum of Rs. 5000 as compensation to the appellant. Dissatisfied, both the parties appealed to the Tribunal. The Presiding Officer of the Tribunal affirmed the finding of the Additional Controller that the respondent landlady had let out the premises contrary to the provisions of section 19(2) of the Act. He, however, set aside the order of the Additional Controller awarding compensation. The reasons which weighed with the Tribunal arc that the finances of the landlady had been exhausted on lengthy litigation and the respondents were forced by circumstances to have a tenant for the living and that the husband of the landlady, who was employed as Aerodrome Officer at Dum Dum Airport, Calcutta had died in February, 1965 and then she shifted to Delhi along with her children and at that time she had two sons and two daughters who were minors and that she requested the tenant to vacate one or two rooms, but the tenant refused to do so and did not even pay the rent. Then the petition for eviction was filed. She Jet out a portion of the premises to one Mr. Pillai on a rent of Rs. 600 per month as she was obliged to do so, since the appellant had not even paid the arrears of rent due and that the respondent landlady needed only a portion of the premises for her residence and not the whole. The Tribunal found that the reletting of the premises by the landlady was bona fide. It further observed that although the respondent landlady had gained a benefit while letting out a portion of the premises to a new tenant, the appellant had not suffered any loss, as he had built his own house where he had shifted and so he had not suffered any monetary loss on account of the landlady obtaining the order of eviction. It was further observed that the appellant had nothing to lose by vacating the premises earlier than the time allowed and that he having constructed his own house was liable to be evicted under clause (h) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act and that was a question of time only and so the appellant was not suffering any loss or damages. Hence the Tribunal held that the appellant was not entitled to the award of any compensation. The Tribunal by the impunged order has disposed of two appeals against the same order of the Additional Controller, one filed by the tenant and the other by the respondent landlady. The learned counsel for the appellant lias challenged the legality and validity of the order of the Rent Control Tribunal in the instant appeals. Section 19 of the Act reads as follows :

(3.) . The word "bona fide", in my opinion qualifies the expression "or possession of such premises is transferred to another person fur reasons which do not appear to the Controller to be bona fide". So far as re-letting is concerned, the bar is absolute and no question of bona fide arises and the landlord is prohibited from re-letting the whole or part of the premises for a period of three years, except with the previous permission of the Controller, which is to be granted on an application moved for the purpose in accordance with Rule 3 of the statutory Rules framed under the Act. The provision of law is very salutory. Under clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act, the landlord is entitled to obtain eviction on his showing to the satisfaction of the Controller that the bona fide needs the premises for residence of himself and members of his family. Often the defence is raised that the landlord does not need the premises bona fide, but his intention is to increase rent or let it out to another tenant on a higher rent. This defence is often met by reliance on the provisions which are now under consideration and should the landlord be found not to occupy the premises within two months or to let them out to transfer them within a period of three years without the permission of the Controller, then the tenant becomes entitled to obtain restitution of the possession of the premises, provided the tenant makes an application in accordance with the statutory Rules 4 within a period of six months from the date of cause of action. The existence of section 19 is therefore, a wholesome, safeguard against the abuse of the right of the landlord to obtain eviction on the ground of bona fide personal necessity. Moreover, sub-section (3) of section 48 of the Act has prescribed that if any landlord relates or transfers whole or any part of the premises in contravention of the provisions of sub- section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 19, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with fine or with both. This offence is triable by a Magistrate of the First Class who has been empowered to impose fine of more than Rs. 2000 under the Act, provided the complaint has been lodged within a period of three months from the date of the commission of the offence.