S B KHANNA Vs. TRILOK NATH TREHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a tenant and the respondent is the landlord. The tenanted premises are in the second floor of the house. The landlord terminated the tenancy by a notice dated February 18, 1976. He made the eviction application on April 6, 1976. In the application the tenanted premises were said to be one Barsati with temporary kitchen, one open bath-cum-latrine on the second floor which were also shown in red in the plan attached. The portion in red did not include the open space. The ground for eviction was that the landlord required the premises bona fide for residence of himself and the members of his family dependent upon him as the first floor in which the family was residing had become insufficient for their requirement.

(2.) The tenant filed a written statement on August 25, 1976. He contended that he was a tenant of the entire second floor including the open space and one bath-room on the ground floor which was illegally occupied by the landlord. He also denied that the portion in occupation of the landlord was insufficient for his requirements. Besides this, the accommodation in the ground floor has been falling vacant which he had been renting out meanwhile to several tenants from time to time at higher rent. The only purpose for eviction proceedings was to secure vacant possession and then re-let the premises similarly at higher rent. On September 28, 1976, replication was filed by the landlord saying that the open space on the second floor was never let out and the roof was being used by his family for the purpose of sleeping and placing their cots and storing other articles. The temporary bath-room on the ground floor was never let to the tenant and it was demolished upon the directions of the Municipal Corporation.

(3.) On September 15, 1977, the tenant filed a suit in the court of the Sub-Judge 1st Class, Delhi, asking for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from entering the second floor without his permission and also directing him to remove his cots from the second floor. The learned Sub-Judge decreed the suit on October 3, 1978. He held that the tenancy comprised the entire second floor of the suit premises.