S INDER SINGH Vs. HARI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been presented by the tenant under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act No. 59 of 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) against the concurrent decisions of the Rent Control Tribunal and the Additional Rent Controller directing eviction on the ground that the landlord bona fide required the premises in dispute for occupation as residence for himself and the members of his family dependent on him and that he was not already in occupation of a reasonably suitable residential accommodation.

(2.) . I may at the outset point out that this second appeal is competent only if it involves some substantial question of law. The learned counsel for the appellant has, therefore, very rightly not taken me through the evidence on the record for the purpose of assailing the concurrent conclusions of the two Courts below in favour of the landlord's bona fids requirement. The only question canvassed at the bar relates to the competency of the petition for eviction on the ground that section 14(6) of the Act operates as a bar. In order to substantiate this objection, Shri N. R. Suri has submitted that the sale-deed in favour of the land- lord transferring the property in question to him was executed en 25th January, 1980 , and the application for evection was presented on 4th September, 1963, whereas according to section 14(8) of the Act, the landlord cannot apply for recovery of possession before th3 expiry of five years from the date of his acquisition.

(3.) . Now, it is common ground that the tenant had been residing as such in the premise's since 1947 and continued to do so under the Custodian in whom this property got vested. The landlord, it is again common ground, v as also residing in the premises since March, 1955, when he started paying rent to the Coustodian. Prima facie, it is true that the sale deed Exhibit A. W. 3/1 is dated 25th January. 1967 and if the acquisition is to be held to be of that date, then the application for possession presented on 4th September 1963 would be premature and section 14(6) of the Act would operate as a bar. But the Rent Controller relied on the letter Exhibit A. W 3/2 issued from the office of the Regional Settlement Commissioner (Management Wing), Ministry of Rehabilitation, and signed by the Managing Officer addressed to the tenant Shri Inder Singh intimating to him that the property in question stood permanently transferred to Shri Hari Chand and that, tharefore, the tenant was directed to pay the rent to the transferee and also deal otherwise with him direct with effect from 1st October, 1955. Inder Singh was further advised to pay arrears of the previous period, if any, to that office. Looking at the footnote at the bottom of the sale-deed Exhibit A. W. 3/1, which reads as under :-