GOPAL DASS Vs. SHIV CHARAN GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the judgment of the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi dated 24th February 1987 whereby the Rent Control Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 18th September 1986.

(2.) The respondent Shiv Charan Dass filed a petition for eviction of the appellants under Sec. 14(l)(a) of the Act in respect of premises bearing no. 4234, Gali Mochian, Paharganj, New Delhi let out to the appellants. Since the premises were situated in the slum area, the respondent obtained permission of the Competent Authority under Section 19 (l)(a) of the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance Act) before filing the eviction petition before the Additional Rent Controller. It was pleaded in the eviction petition that the permises which consisted of two rooms, one kitchen, latrine, open court-yard and a Chhajja on the first floor of the above- mentioned property were let out originally to Shri Todar Mal, the father of the appellants for residential purpose On the death of Shri Todar Mal, the present appellants became tenant in the said property. There was no written document of tenancy. The agreed rent was Rs 30.00 per month. It was further averred in the eviction petition:(l) that the appellants herein had failed to pay the arrears of rent in spite of repeated demands from 1st August 1978 to 31st August 1980; and(2) that the appellants had acquired another property bearing municipal no. 1730-D.Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, New Delhi after the creation of the tenancy of the premises in dispute about four years before filing of the eviction petition. The respondent did not press the ground of non-payment of rent before the Additional Rent Controller but only pressed the ground under Section 14 (l)(h) of the Act.

(3.) The Additional Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the disputed premises were let out for residential purpose and the appellants having acquired another residential accommodation, they were liable, to be evicted under Section 14(l)(h) of the Act. Before the 'Rent Control Tribunal, this order was challenged and the Rent Control Tribunal gave a concurrent finding that the letting purpose was residential and the appellants having acquired another alternative residential accommodation, the eviction of th appellants was rightly ordered.