RAM SEWAK HARI Vs. SAIN DATTA MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 35 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1.952, for revising the orders of the Courts below, dismissing the suit of the petitioner for ejectment of the respondent, under Section 13 of that Act. In support of the relief claimed in the suit, two grounds were put forward bringing the same under the requirements of Sections 13 (b) and 13 (e) of that Act. The landlord-plaintiff is a firm said to be consisting of 10 partners, composed of three families, The allegation in the plaint was that the tenant had sublet the premises and therefore, was liable to ejectment under Section 13(b). The second ground put forward was that the partners of the firm were under orders of eviction from the premises, which they were occupying, and consequently, they required the premises in question for then occupation. Both the Courts found against the petitioner on both the points and hence this revision under Section 35 of the Act.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner strnuously contended that the respondent sublet or assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the premises, thereby rendering himself liable to be evicted under Section 13(b) of the Act. Both the Courts have gone into the avidence and rejected the case of the petitioner and they have held that the plaintiff had failed to substantiate the allegations about the respondent subletting or assigning or parting with possession of the suit premises. It is a pure 'question of fact and the finding is based upon 'evidence and there is neither a misapplication of law nor a misunderstanding of the law applicable to the question when the Courts below arrived at this conclusion, and consequently, there is no ground for interference in this behalf in revision, under Section 35 of the Act

(3.) With regard to the second ground also, the Courts have very meticulously calculated the members of the family of the 10 partners ot the firm and the accommodation that is available to them. It has been found by the Courts below that 7 flats and 2 garages were available for occupation by the partners of the petitioner-firm and their family members and the finding with reference to this was not challenged before me. What is contended is that the number of members of the family is so large and for their requirement, this accommodation was inadequate, and therefore, the Courts below committed an error of law. As a matter of fact the trial Court calculated the total number of the members of the family of all the groups as between 45 and 50, and even for that number, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the 7 flats available constituted sufficient and suitable accommodation for them. The Appellate Court, on the other hand. found that the number of members arrived at by the trial Court was incorrect and after referring to the evidence let in in this behalf arrivsd at the total number of family members at 31. Having arrived at that figure, it agreed with the conclusion of the trial Court that the 7 flats were sufficient for the accommodation of the petitioner's families, and consequently, they were not entitled to an order ejecting the respondent from the premises in question.