SHYAM SUNDER SHARMA Vs. PREM LATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The principal ground on which the order of the Rent Controller is challenged is that under the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act and particularly section 14(l)(e) read with Section 25(b), the Rent Controller cannot order eviction from the part of the tenanted premises. In other words, partial eviction is not permissible under the Delhi Rent Control Act.

(2.) The eviction petition was filed by one Ram Chander as the owner of the premises. He died during the pendency of the proceedings and the respondents in the appeal are the legal heirs. It is an admitted fact that originally the petitioner was the tenant of Ram Chander and Ram Pratap, who were the joint owners of the property. Although the petitioner had originally submitted that Ram Chander and Ram Pratap continue to be the joint landlords and Ram Chander cannot alone file the eviction petition, the petitioner admitted in bis cross-examination that there was a partition between the two joint owners and he started paying RS.IO.00 per month to each one of them from 1966 onwards. The fact of partition between Ram Chander Ram Pratap is proved by the partition deed Ex. R/l and the witnesses on behalf of the landlord. It is a further admitted fact that there is no partition by meets and bound between the two earlier joint owners. According to the partition deed, it is proved that the premises in question fell to the share of Ram Chander. In the eviction petition the tenanted premises were described as 2 Dalans, I kitchen and one Kotha on the first floor of House Mo. 2124, Dhobiwara.Kinari Bazar, Delhi. These premises were shown with the red pencil on the plan filed alongwith the eviction petition. According to the petitioner the premises are not correctly described in the petition. The learned Rent Controller while reading the Plan Ex. AW/3/1 has given a finding that the red portion claimed to be the premises in the petition consist of one Kothri, one kitchen and half of one room and half of one room and half of one Dalan. The landlord had admitted that the petitioner's tenancy covers more than the premises shown in the plan. But, what is claimed is than in the partition the share of Ram Chander was according to the red pencil mark on the plan in question.

(3.) There is clear discrepancy in the premises mentioned in the eviction petition and the plan Ex. AW/3/1 filed alongwith the petition. It is also admitted by the landlord that the petitioner tenant had larger premises as the part of his tenancy. Reading the submissions together, the eviction petition suffers from the material irregularity of not describing the premises correctly. Secondly, the landlord is seeking eviction only of the part of the tenanted premises. The Rent Cotroller has held that the petitioner has accepted the partition when he started paying Rs. 10.00 each per month to Ram Chaoder and Ram Pratap. To my mind this payment of rent does not throw light on the actual partition because there is no partition by meets and bounds. Even after the alleged partition the petitioner is enjoying the entire premises as one unit. The petitioner's contention that the premises have only one access and the physical partition is impossible has not been effectively rebutted by Ram Chander, one of the landlords. The impugned order suffers from the illegality of ordering eviction from part of the premises and material irregularity in regard to the finding on the exact area of the tenanted premises.