LAWS(DLH)-1987-5-36

MADAN LAL Vs. INDRA DEVI

Decided On May 05, 1987
MADAN LAL Appellant
V/S
INDRA DEVI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal by the tenant is directed againstthe eviction order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal on September 11, 1978.

(2.) The respondent-landlady filed a petition for eviction on the groundscovered by clauses (e) and (h) of provisio to sub-section (1) of section 14 of theDelhi Rent Control Act. As regards clause (e) is concerned, the finding recorded was against the landlady. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the petitionon both the grounds holding that the appellant had acquired alternate residential premises but the petition having been filed by one of the owners was incompetent. In appeal, the Tribunal reversed the findings recorded by the RentController and held that the respondent was the landlady as the appellant hadattorned to her and was regularly pay ing rents to her. The rent receipts hadbeen issued by her. This finding was based on evidence both oral and documentary. Admittedly she was one of the coowners after the death of herhusband and the other co-owners were her children. She was realising rentsand issuing receipts. This fact, in fact, has not been disputed and is alsoapparent from the various rent receipts placed on record. For seeking evictionunder clause (h), it is not necessary that the petition should be filed by theowner and it can be filed by the landlord. The finding of fact recorded beingthat the respondent was the landlady, the petition is obviously competent.

(3.) As regards the ingredients of clause (h) it stands proved that theappellant has acquired alternate residential premises and in fact this finding wasnot challenged before the Tribunal. The Tribunal all the same has recordedfinding on the basis of eviction petition having been filed by the appellantregarding portion of the premises which he had acquired. In that petition theappellant himself had mentioned that the premises were let for residential purpose. It was not disputed that the appellant was keeping at least one room inthe said premises and the remaining rooms had been let to other tenants.