M M MEHTA Vs. CHAMAN LAL KAPOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is a tenant of the respondent, seeks setting aside of the order of eviction passed against him on November 15, 1978 by the Rent Controller. Delhi, under Section 14(1)(e) of theelhi Rent Control Act, 1958, through this petition.

(2.) The facts leading to the eviction petition are that the landlord, Chaman Lal Kapoor, owner of House No. Fl/5, Model Town, Delhi. had let out a portion on the first-floor of the said building comprising 2 bedrooms, one drawing-cum-dining-room, a bath and a kitchen, to the petitioner in August, 1964. Another portion on the first-floor, consisting of one bed-room, one store-room and a bath with a terrace, had been let out to another tenant. The said portion, however, was vacated by the other tenant in June, 1977. The family of the landlord consists of himself, his wife, 3 married sons, one unmarried son who, it is stated at the Bar, has also got married during the pendency of the proceedings, and 6 grand-children. The portion on the groundfloor, according to the landlord, consists of one drawing-cum-dining room, 4 bedrooms, a kitchen and a bath etc. The second portion on the first-floor is now in his possession. In between the stairs leading from the first-floor to the ground-floor there is admittedly a "Miani", and on the second-floor of the said building there is a "barsati", all in possession of the landlord. His case was that he required the portion let out to the petitioner-tenant bonafide for occupation as residence for himself and for the other members of the family dependent on him. Consequently, the petition under Section 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, was filed against the tenant which was allowed by the Rent Controller, as stated above.

(3.) Mr. A. K. Gangoli, learned counsel for the petitioner, has. submitted that the order of eviction made by the Controller was not according to law and hence liable to be set aside. He urged, inter alia, that the application for eviction filed by the landlord was not as per the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Rules, 1959, the proceedings were thus void ab initio. Secondly, he submitted that the landlord has not proved his requirement as envisaged under Section 14(l)(e) of the Act; alternatively it was argued that the married sons of the landlord, who are individually earning their separate livel hood, are not dependent on him and as such their requirement could not be made the basis of the eviction order under the said Section.