LAWS(DLH)-1987-11-28

R B KAPOOR Vs. MANEK N DASTUR

Decided On November 23, 1987
R.B.KAPOOR Appellant
V/S
MANEK N.DASTUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER :- These two applications have been filed by the petitioner-landlord during the pendency of the revision petition. The first application (CM 1664/87) has been filed under the provisions of O.41, R.27, O.7, Rule 7 and S.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for bringing on record certain subsequent facts mentioned in the application. The second application (CM 2664/87) arises out of the first application and is connected therewith and seeks permission to place on record documents filed along with this application. In order to dispose of these applications it is necessary to give brief facts of the case which are as follows :

(2.) The petitioner is the landlord. On 17th Nov., 1968 the premises i.e. ground floor, Bearing No. 127, Jor Bagh, New Delhi, were let by the petitioner to the respondent-tenant on a monthly rental of Rs. 750/-. On 19th Nov., 1979 the petitioner filed a petition for eviction against the tenant under S.14(1)(e) on the ground of personal bonafide requirement pleading that the petitioner is posted at Meerut while his son is studying in Modern School, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, in 9th Class and on account of the petitioner and his family being out of Delhi the education of the petitioner's son has suffered and, therefore, the petitioner wants to shift his family from Meerut to live in the demised premises where also the petitioner's son would live so that proper supervision and guidance is provided to him.

(3.) The application of the tenant for leave to defend was dismissed. Consequently by order dated 28th Feb., 1980, the Rent Controller, Delhi, passed the order of eviction against the tenant. However, this order was set aside by the High, Court and the tenant was granted leave to defend the eviction petition. As the circumstances changed during the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, the petitioner sought leave of the learned Rent Controller to amend the petition for eviction. The leave was granted. The eviction petition was amended. In the amended petition for eviction it was pleaded that at the time of filing of the petition the petitioner was posted at Meerut. He believed that the respondent would vacate the premises in terms of the order dated 28th Feb., 1980 after expiry of six months which expired on 28th Aug., 1980. In the meantime the tenant filed a Civil Revision and obtained stay of dispossession from the High Court. The petitioner's family had to shift to Delhi and look after the education of the petitioner's son who was said to be then studying in 10th class in Modern School, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, and took on rent one Barsati at R - 652 Barsati floor, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi, on a monthly rent of Rs. 700/-. The petitioner further pleaded that he had been transferred back to Delhi in Jan., 1981 and it has not been possible for him even to get allotment of government accommodation. The petitioner's family comprises of self, his wife and two children and the existing one room accommodation on rent is grossly inadequate for petitioner's requirement and that of his family members dependent on him. The petitioner, during the pendency of the proceedings before the Rent Controller also filed an application under O.7, R.7 read with S.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure placing on record the fact that the petitioner had vacated R-652, Barsati floor, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi on account of accommodation being insufficient and has shifted to 3/30, First Floor, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi, with effect from 1st June, 1981 on a rent of Rs. 1050/- per month, the accommodation being one drawing-cum-dining and two bedrooms besides kitchen, bath etc. The parties led their evidence. The case set up by petitioner was that his brother Vishnu Dutt is a tenant on the first and barsati floor of the suit property. The tenant in his written statement pleaded that the said portion has come into the possession of the petitioner. However, in evidence the tenant stated that Vishnu Dutt, brother of the petitioner, is living in the entire first floor and barsati floor of the suit property.