RATTAN LAL Vs. GAJNAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of two connected appeals viz S.A.O No. 117 D of 1964 and S.AO No. 20 D of 1985 which raise the same point.

(2.) The only point urged by the learned counsel for the appellant in this case is that on the admitted findings of the authorities constituted under the Delhi Kent Control Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act), the respondent-landlord s application for eviction of the tenant-appellant merits dismissal

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that Gaja Nand respondent has been held to be a coowner of the property from which the appellants eviction in bo! b the cases was claimed by him. His applications for eviction of the appllants tinder section 14(1) (e) of the Act have been allowed by the Rent Controller as well as by the Rent Control Tribunal on the basis of Single Bench decision of Chief Justice Falshaw (as he then was of the Punjab High Court in Vir Bhan v. Avlar Krishan etc, holding that : -