ROOP NARAIN GOELA Vs. KRISHNA DEVI BAGADIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Krishna Devi Bagadia, the. landlord of the House in question, filed a petition for eviction against the appellants. Eviction was claimed under section 14(l)(b) and (h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, and by order dated February 22, 1968, the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, allowed the petition on the grounds that tenant Roop Narain Goela had sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the premises in dispute in favour of Mangey Ram and Parkash Chand, appellants No. 2 and 3 respectively, without the written consent of the landlord and that tenant Roop Narain Goela had built, a residential house in Greater Kailash, New Delhi. The appellants filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, which was dismissed on March II, 1968, in limine. From the order of the Tribunal it appears that the only question raised by the appellants was about the necessity of a notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy before taking proceedings for eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The appellants have filed the present second appeal in this Court against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated March 11, 1968, and their learned counsel confined his arguments only to the point whether or not notice under section 106 was necessary.

(2.) Both the Rent Control Tribunal and the Additional Rent Controller recorded a finding that the first appellant (tenant) being a statutory tenant no notice terminating the tenancy was necessary. In paragraph 18(b) of the petition it has been alleged by the landlord that "no notice is required. The tenancy was initially for a period of 11 months, which came to end on the expiry of the said period on 20th June, 1958. The respondent No. I is a statutory tenant. There is no specific denial of this assertion in the written-statement. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that two important factors were completely destructive of the tenancy being a statutory one-

(3.) The matter may be looked at from another point of view. The Additional Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal have recorded a finding of fact that Roop Narain Goela was only a statutory tenant. It is not open to us to disturb that finding in an appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act.