NIADER MAL AMAR NATH Vs. RUKMANI DEVI JAIPURIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT. Rukmani Devi filed an eviction petition on 09. 02. 1973 against the appellants under Section 14 (1) (a), (b) and (j) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred to as, the said Act) in respect of the tenanted premises bearing No. 321/322/372, Katra Gauri Shankar, Chandni chowk, Delhi. The present premises were stated to be let out to appellant No. 1 and the tenant was stated to be in arrears of rent. It was further alleged that appellant No. 1 had sub-let/assigned or otherwise parted with the premises to appellant No. 2 without the written consent of the landlord. An allegation was also made about the appellants causing substantial damage to the property.

(2.) THE Additional Rent Controller (hereinafter to be referred to as, the ARC) after recording evidence decided the dispute in terms of the order dated 23. 09. 1996 after a protracted litigation. The appellants were found to be in arrears of rent, but were given the benefit of Section 14 (2) of the said Act in view of there being the first default. Insofar as the allegation of sub-letting is concerned, it was found that the landlady had been able to establish her case. The position was same in respect of the allegation of substantial damage to the premises, but the ARC found that the nature of damages were such that repairs would not be the appropriate remedy and, thus, appellant No. 1 was directed to pay a sum of rs. 25,000/- as compensation to the respondent.

(3.) THE appellants aggrieved by the said order filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal (hereinafter to be referred to as, the Tribunal ). The cross-objections were also filed by the successors to the landlady, who had since expired and who are trustees of the respondent in the present petition. The respondent is a charitable trust. The appeals were disposed of by the common order dated 02. 04. 1998. No dispute was really raised in respect of the ground under section 14 (1) (a) of the said Act. The controversies were limited to Section 14 (1) (b) of the said Act in respect of which the appeals of the appellants were dismissed and the cross-objections of the respondent in respect of Section 14 (1) (j) of the said Act were allowed and a direction was passed in respect of the damages granted by the ARC that instead of the same the substantial damage should be removed and the property be put back in the original position.