PRAGOWATI DEVI Vs. BHAWANISHANKER BASRUKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlady, who is the appellant before this Court, filed an application under section .14 of the Delhi Rent Control Ait, 1958, for the eviction of the respondent-tenant on several grounds, two of which alone were argued before me and those two grounds, as set out in the application, are as follows :

(2.) The respondent-tenant denied the allegations contained in the application. He expressly stated that there was no agreement as to the letting purpose or to the nature of user to which the premises would be put and it was, therefore, incorrect that the premises were residential. He further denied that the premises were let for residential purposes only and contended that there was no agreement limiting the manner of user of the premises. He also denied that the premises were bona fide required by 'he appellant had no other reasonably suitable accommodation. With regard to the allegation of subletting assignment, or otherwise parting with the possession of any part of the premises, the same was also denied by the respondent-tenant. The Rent Controller on the first ground held in favour of the appellant, but on the second ground held against the appellant. In view of his finding on the first ground, he passed an order for recovery of possession of the premises in favour of the appellant. Against this order the respondent had preferred an appeal to the Rent Control Tribunal, who by an order dated 22nd August, l961, reversed the finding of the Rent Controller on the first ground and confiemed the finding of the Rent Controller on the second ground with the result the appeal was allowed and the petition for eviction was dismissed. It is under these circumstances the second appeal has been preferred to this Court.

(3.) Shri Chawla, appearing for the appellant, challenged the finding of the Rent Control Tribunal on the first ground and the findings of both the Rent Controller and Rent Control Tribunal on the second ground. Before dealing with the contention of the learned counsel, it is necessary to mention as to what exactly was the evidence that was available before the Tribunals below. The landlady, who was examined as P. W. 3, did not give any evidence as to the allegation of sub-letting, assignment, or parting with possession of the premises in question. It is only A. W. 5 who stated something with regard to this and he too stated that the respondent herein for the last 1 or 2 years sublet the portion of these premises to one Nair. This was all the evidence that was available on behalf of the landlady with reference to this allegation. On the other hand, the respondent-tenant stated in his evidence that Shri Nair was working as P. A. to his father and subsequently was work ing as such to himself. It was his father's wish expressed before his death that Shri Nair and his wife should be allowed to remain in the premises to look after the respondent and his mother, and accordingly Shri Nair and his wife were living in the premises in question, the respondent was not collecting any rent from Shri Nair, Shri Nair and hi, wife were allowed the exclusive use of one room, the other portions of the premises were in joint use, and a joint mess for the respondent, Shri Nair and his wife was run by a servant of the respondent. Shri Nair himself gave evidence and he stated that he was residing in the house since March, 1958, i.e, even before the death of the respondent's father, and he and his wife were using one room while the other portions of the house were being used by all the three He further stated that the respondent's house-hold articles were kept even in their bed-room which was in their use. It is on the basis of this evidence that the Rent Controller and the Tribunal came to different conclusions with regard to the ground alleged by the appellant. On appreciation of this evidence the Tribunal stated as follows :