C D BISWAS Vs. LACHHAMI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal under Section 39 of Delhi Rent Control Act of 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) and is directed against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 11/3/1964 affirming the order, of the Rent Controller dated 21/9/1963 directing eviction of the tenant (appellant in this Court). The Rent Controller gave to the tenant six months' period whereafter the order was to be executed. The ground on which the order of eviction was made was bona fide requirement of the landlord within the contemplation of section 14(l)(e) of the Act.

(2.) The only point which has been canvassed before me on behalf of the appellant is that an application was made on 21/9/1963 before the Rent Controller for permission to adduce evidence in support of the assertion made on that date that Hari Ram, one of the petitioninglandlords had been allotted a quarter by the Railway and that he had falsely deposed before the Rent Controller that he had neither been allotted any quarter by the Government nor had he applied for such allotment. This application was disallowed because the case had been closed by that time and, according to the Rent Controller, no additional evidence could in the circumstances, be allowed. I may point out here that this application was supported by an affidavit affirmed by Shri C. D. Biswas to the following effect:-

(3.) This affidavit, I may point out, contains some corrections in ink which do not seem to have been initialled by the Oath Commissioner. The corrections substitute the words "allotted and occupied" in place of the word "allotted" and the year 1957 also seems to have been substituted in place of presumably 1953' or 1959'. At this stage, my attention has been drawn by the learned counsel for the respondents to the fact that in this Court Shri Biswas has filed an affidavit, according to which Shri Hari Ram was residing at C/14-G, Railway Quarters, East Jangpura Extension, New Delhi, and that the said Hari Ram has been living in the said quarter since 14/3/1957, the same having been allotted to him by the Railway Authorities. The discrepancy to which my attention has been drawn by the learned counsel for the respondents, may not be very material, but it does suggest that the dependent has not cared to get precise information before swearing these two affidavits.