SHRI SATYA NARAIN Vs. SMT. VIDYA WATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Rent Controller as also the Rent Control Tribunal have ordered the eviction of the appellant from the premises occupied by him in favour of the respondent-landlady on the ground that the respondent-landlady bonafide needed the premises for the residence of herself and her family and that she did not have any other reasonably suitable accommodation within the meaning of clause (e) of the proviso to sub section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. In this second appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the learned counsel for the tenant Shri Sultan Singh has assailed the correctness of the judgments of the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal on two grounds, namely, (1) that the landlady had reasonably suitable accommodation in her possession and (2) that the notice to terminate the tenancy had not been valid.

(2.) Under section 39 the jurisdiction of this Court arises only when there is a substantial question of law for decision. In the present case the only question was whether three rooms, two on the first floor and third as the Barsati on the second floor were sufficient for the needs of the family which then consisted of the landlady and her husband, their married son, his wife and one child and their unmarried daughter and two unmarried sons. Since then I am informed that one unmarried son died and the daughter has very recently been married but two more children have been born to the wife of the married son. Even then one room of the first floor is required by the landlady and her husband and other room on the first floor is required by the married son, his wife and there children. It is only the unmarried son who can be sent to the Barasti which is exposed to the sun and rains. The married son, his wife and three children do not have sufficient accommodation for themselves in the second room on the first floor which is only 10'x7'. It cannot be said, therefore, that any substantial question of law arises as to bonafide need of the landlady or her possessing reasonably suitable accommodation.

(3.) As for the second question Shri Sultan Singh urges that section 110 of the Transfer of Property Act should have been applied to the construction of the notice to quit. Shri Budhiraja replies that the tenancy begins on 9th January, 1962 when the Transfer of Property Act did not apply to Delhi. This contention cannot, therefore, be urged and it must be for this reason that it was not in these terms urged before the Controller and the Rent Controller Tribunal.