PHOOL WATI Vs. HARSH GOGIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated November 23, 1987 passed by Shri M.A.Khan, Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi affirming the judgment dated 20th August, 1985 of Additional Rent Controller.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that Shri K.L.Malik and eight others (of whom Shri K.L.Malik has died and his legal representatives were brought on record during the pendency of the case) jointly filed a petition for eviction against appellant Smt.Phool Wati and nine others from two shops bearing No.5593-5594. G.B.Road. Delhi under clauses (a), (b), (f), (g) and (j) of Section 14 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') alleging that the premises were let out to Sunder Lal who was the husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellants Nos 2 to 8 in the year 1939. After his death appellants 2 to 8 became the tenants in the premises in dispute. The rent was RS.IIO.00 per month which was the standard rent fixed under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952. It was alleged that the appellants neither paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of rent with effect from August 4, 1970 despite service of registered demand notice dated August 19, 1977. The next ground of eviction was that after 9th day of June, 1952 the appellants sub-let, assigned or otherwise parted with possession of whole or part of the premises in dispule to the sub-tenant, appellant No.9, without the consent in writing of the respondents. The said appellant was carrying on the work of transport under the trade name of Delhi Kanpur (Gondia) Transport Company. The other grounds of eviction were that the premises required major repairs which could not be carried out without the premises being vacated and that the appellants have caused or permitted to have caused substantial damage to the premises by making a Dochhati and also made other additions and alterations resulting in weakening of the structure of the property. The respondents also sought eviction of the appellants on the ground that the premises in dispute were required bona fide by them for the purpose of holding and/or re-building or making thereto substantial additions and alterations which could not be carried out without the premises being vacated.

(3.) The appellants filed written statement denying the allegations of the respondents and stated that the respondents were neither the owners nor landlords of the premises in dispute and the petition was barred by the principles of resjudicata as the respondent had earlier filed eviction petition No.1106 of 1976 in the court of Shri P.S.Sharma, Rent Controller, Delhi, who dismissed the same vide his order dated September 7, 1977. It was further stated that after the death of Sunder Lal Jain, predecessor-in-interest of appellants 1 to 8, nobody accepted rent from the tenants nor accepted them as such. Therefore, the rent was deposited in the court. The respondents sent notice accepting Smt. Phool Wati alone as their tenant. The service of demand notice was denied. It was also denied that respondent No.9 was sub-tenant in the premises and was carrying on business in his own name.