LAWS(DLH)-1986-11-22

RATTAN LAL Vs. GOPAL DASS DASS TANDON

Decided On November 26, 1986
RATTAN LAL Appellant
V/S
GOPAL DASS DASS TANDON Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal under S.39, Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') is directed against the judgement and order dt. 12-9-1978 of the Rent Control Tribunal confirming the order dt. 11-1975 of the Additional Rent Controller passing an order of eviction in favour of Shri Gopal Dass Tandon, respondent 1 and against the appellant and respondents 2 to 6 of this appeal.

(2.) Respondent 1 on 3-3-1970 filed a petition for eviction of his tenant Rattan Lal More appellant and sub-tenants. The eviction petition was allowed to be amended. In the amended petition dt. 11th May, 1971, respondent 1 pleaded that the appellant was his tenant in a portion of the premises bearing Municipal No. 5491, Ward No. 6, Nai Sarak, Delhi at a monthly rent of Rs. 224.25; the premises were let in the year 1952 and there was no agreement in writing; the appellant had sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of part of the premises after 9th June, 1952 without his written consent to respondents 2 to 5 and subsequent to the filing of the eviction petition a part of the premises was also sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with possession without his consent to Bhola Nath Seth, respondent 6.

(3.) The eviction petition was contested only by the appellant who admitted himself to be tenant in the demised premises under respondent 1. However, with regard to the merits of the ground of eviction a plea was taken that respondents 2 to 4 were inducted on the second floor at the instance of respondent 1 and they were paying Rs. 100/per month as rent. The appellant did not make it clear in the written statement as to whom respondents 2 to 4 were paying rent. In respect of B.P. Garg respondent 5 plea was taken that he was an employee of the appellant earlier and had been in possession of one room as his licencee; a suit was filed by the appellant in the Civil Court. The appellant further pleaded that respondent 6 Bhola Nath Seth was not inducted in any portion of the demised premises.