RAMESHWAR DUTT SHARMA Vs. CHANDU LAL SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the Order passed by Shri M.A.Khan, Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi. The learned Judge allowed the appeal of the respondent landlord under the provisions of Section 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') and passed an order of eviction giving six months time to vacate the premises.

(2.) The appellant Rameshwar Dutt Sharma is a tenant in a portion of the property No.W.Z.-72, Sri Nagar, Shakurbasti, Delhi on a monthly rent of Rs.60.00 besides Rs.10.00 for electric charges and Rs.5.00 for water charges. The respondent filed an eviction petition under Sections 14 (1) (a) and 14 (1)(e) of the Act. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the petition and held that the respondent had not made out a case under either of the provisions. The plea for bona fide requirement for additional accommodation was, therefore, rejected. The Appellate Court examined the contentions of the parties for grounds of eviction under the provisions of 14 (1)(e) and the findings recorded in respect of 14(1)(a) were not challenged. Admittedly the family of the respondent consisted of himself, his wife and two children, one daughter aged about 10 years and one son aged about 14 years at the time of filing of the petition. The respondent, it was stated, was in possession of one small room on the first floor and one kothri on the ground floor in his possession and he was not in possession of any other accommodation and was an employee of M.C.D. getting a salary of Rs.500.00 per month at that time. The Rent Control Tribunal recorded the findings of fact to the following effect:-

(3.) In view of the above findings an eviction order was passed under sub-clause (e) of Section 14 (1) of the Act and appeal of the respondent was allowed. The appellant was granted six months time to vacate the premises. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that part of the premises were let out to Babu Ram on 9th January 1984 as will be indicated from the rent deed executed on that date. Therefore, the need of the respondent cannot be termed as bona fide. The accommodation allegedly let out to another tenant Babu Ram in January 1984 was not established as the said Babu Ram came in possession of the premises prior to that date and only a rent deed was executed on 9th January, 1984. The learned Rent Control Tribunal, however, did not accept the contention and came to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the Rent Controller are factually incorrect and it cannot be said that the claim of the respondent was in any manner malafide.