SARLAWATI DEWAN Vs. MANGAL SAM BAHRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal by the landlord is directed against the judgment and order dated 17-11-79 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal whereby the appeal filed by the tenant against order passed under Section 15(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act was set alide and consequently, it was further held that since respondent No. 1 was not proved to be the tenant, the eviction petition itself was also dismissed.

(2.) The appellant/landlord had filed a petition for eviction under Clauses (b) & (e) of Section 14(1) of the Act. An application under Section 15 of the Act was also filed on the ground that no rent have been paid to the landlord from 1st August, 1973. It was alleged that respondent No. 1 namely Shri Mangal Sain was the tenant of the premises in dispute and subsequently he inducted his brother who was respondent No. 2 and after respondent No. 1 had retired he paited in possession in favour of his brother respondent No. 2. The bonafids requirements of the landlord were also pleaded.

(3.) In defence it was stated that respondent No. 1 was never the tenant and the premises were taken on tenancy by respondent No. 2, Parties bad led evidence on the question as to who was the tenant. The learned Addl. Rent Controller after referring to the entire evidence led by the parties came to the conclusion that the premises bad been handed over to respondent No. 1 and as such he was the tenant. Consequently he allowed the application under Section 15(2) of the Act and directed respondent No. 1 to pay the arrears of rent with effect from 1-8-73 and to continue to deposit the future rent by the 15th of each month. The respondent No. 1 was further directed to deposit the water charges at the rate of Rs. 4.37 p. per month. Respondent I and 2 filed a joint appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal. The Rent Control Tribunal re-appraised the entire evidence and reversed the findings recorded by the Addl. Rent Controller. It was held that respondent No. 2 was the tenant and as such the eviction petition against respondent No. 1 was not maintainable. Consequently the order under Section 15(2) of the Act was set aside and the petition for eviction was also dismissed.