RAM CHAND Vs. URMILA BAHL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal from order under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 59 of 1958 (hereafter called the Act) is directed against the order dated 15/5/1968 of the Rent Control Tribunal reversing on appeal the order of the Rent Controller dated 4/1/1968 and passing an order of eviction against the appellant in this Court. The tenant was directed to deliver possession of the premises in question to the landlady on or before 15/8/1968.

(2.) The landlady, by means of her application dated 21/11/1966 presented on 23/11/1966, sought eviction of the tenant on the ground that the premises were required by her bona fide for the purpose of re-building and making thereto substantial additions and alterations and that such re-building and additions and alterations could not be carried out without the premises being vacated. It was added that the proposed re-building, alterations and additions would not radically alter the purpose for which the premises had been let and the plans and estimates of such reconstruction had been properly prepared. The necessary funds for the purpose were, according to the averments, available with the landlady. The notice given by the landlady to the tenant was alleged to have been refused. The petition also averred that the tenant had not paid rent since 1/6/1966. It was admitted in the application that the premises had been purchased by the landlady on 6/8/1966 from Shri Lachhman Dass and the tenant was in possession under the previous landlord/owner of the premises.

(3.) The application was resisted by the tenant on various grounds.Amongst the preliminary objections, it was averred that the house having been purchased by the landlady on 6/8/1966 and five years having not elapsed, no demand for eviction was competent. According to the second objection, the proceedings were premature because no notice had been served on the tenant. The plea of refusal of notice was described to be a trick, suggesting that there was collusion between the postman and the landlady. The plea of making additions and alterations was also described to be a mere cloak to have the tenant ejected from the house, it being added that such additions and alterations did not require eviction. On the merits, apart from other denials relating to the averment of there being sanitary fittings fixed in the premises, it was averred that the tenant had paid rent up to April, 1966 to the previous landlord and it was added that the tenant had spent Rs. 416.70 Paise with the consent of the previous landlord out of which a sum of Rs. 21.00 was adjusted towards the rent for the month of May, 1966. The tenant claimed reimbursement to the tune of Rs. 395.70 Paise which he claimed to be adjustable towards future rent. The landlady, according to the written statement, was not entitled to claim any rent prior to 6/8/1966, which was the date of her purchase.