SHRI KRISHAN LAL Vs. AMRIT DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by a tenant against whom an order for recovery of possession has been made by the Rent Control Tribunal. By that order the Tribunal reversed the decision of the Additional Rent Controller who had dismissed the landlady's application under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The only question argued before me is, whether the landlady already has sufficient accommodation for her-self and the members of her family. On the face of it, this is a question of fact not entertainable in second appeal. But, counsel for the tenant has referred to Mattulal v. Radhe Lal, 1974 AIR(SC) 1596, and contended that the findings of the Tribunal is the result of 'an error of law' or is 'arbitrary, unreasonable or perverse'.

(2.) The facts which appear from the evidence are as follows. Since many years before 1969, Parshotam Dass was the tenant of one room in house No. 1877, Basti Aheeran, Malka Ganj, Delhi. In May 1969, his wife, Amrit Devi, purchased a double-storeyed house which is numbered 15 and 16, Malka Ganj, Delhi. The room and the house are quite close to each other. At the time of purchase, the ground floor of the house was vacant, but the first floor was occupied by Krishan Lal, who had been a tenant since 1956. There is no dispute that immediately afterwards Amrit Devi and her son began to reside in the ground floor. The controversy is whether the husband also began to reside there.

(3.) In or about October 1969 Roop Narain, the owner of house No. 1877, applied to the competent authority under the Slun Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 for permission to take proceedings for evicting Parshotam Dass from the room let to him. On of the grounds on which it was intended to seek eviction was that the room had been let for use as a residence and neither Parshotam Dass nor any member of his family was residing therein. In those proceedings, Parshotam Dass filed an affidavit dated 29th January, 1970 in which he said that he 'resides in the premises in question and draws his ration at this address and votes also at the premises in dispute'. The competent authority granted the permission. Thereafter, in August 1972, Roop Narain filed an application before the Rent Controller seeking an order for recovery of possession against Parshotam Dass. In his written statement Parshotam Dass pleaded that the room in question had been let for residential-cum-commerical purposes. He denied that he had shifted to the house purchased by his wife, and that neither he nor any member of his family was residing in that room.