RAM LAL Vs. HARI KISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second apeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and order dated 9th October. 1985 of the Rent Control Tribunal confirming the order of eviction under Section 14(l)(c) of the Act and giving benefit under Section 14(2) of the Act to the appellant.

(2.) Briefly the facts are that the respondent Hari Kishan had filed a petition for eviction of the appellant Ram Lal from premises No. 8A/60, Geeta Colony, Delhi-31 alleging that the appellant was in arrears of rent @Rs. 22 per month from 1-3-197R and that he neither paid nor tendered the rents within two months from the date of the service of the notice of demand dated 14th November, 1980. He also alleged that the promises were let for residential purposes and the same were required by him for occupation as a residence for members of his family. that he was the owner of the premises, that he had no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation, that originally Smt. Goli Bai had let out the premises to the appellant at Rs. 22 per month, that she expired and he became the owner by virtue of a lettered Will dated 12th April. 1971. The appellant-tenant raised various defences in the written statement, however, the r.'on1ts now argued in this appeal are (1) the respondent is not the owner/landlord of the suit promises as the Will dated 12th Aprili 1971 has not been proved in accordance with law, and (2) the requirement of the respondent is not H bona fide. The Additional Rent Controller by judgment and order dated 9th March, 1885 held that the Will stood oroved: the respondent was the owner-landlord: he re^rsd t^e o"c- rmses ^onn fide: he was not in possession of tmv reasonablv suitable residential accommodation and the appellant was in arrears from 1st March, 1978. The Additional Rent Controller gave benefit of Section 14(2) of the Act and passed an order of eviction under Section .1.4(1) (e) of the Act against the appellant which was confirmed by the Rent Control Tribunal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Will 8 dated 12th April, 1971 Ex. A.W. 1/ 7 has not been proved in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. The respondent appeared as A.W. I who identified the signatures of the two attesting witnesses Ghanshyam Dass and Lal Chand at points marked 'A' and 'B' on the Will. He has stated that Smt. Goli Bai had executed the Will in 1971 in his presence, it was registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar rind the Will was marked as Ex. A.W. 1/7.