GIAN SINGH Vs. SURRINDER LAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTS giving rise to this petition for revision, which has been filed by a tenant under Section 35 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1958, are as follows: Shri Mohan Lai, Advocate, who is the owner of the premises, according to him as the Karta of the joint Hindu family, let out one flat out of a building consisting of four flats to Gian Singh and Siri Ram in the year 1952 at a monthly rent of Rs. 150. The premises are situate in Karol Bagh. The tenancy was for a period of three months. It may be mentioned that Siri Ram surrendered possession of his portion to Gian Singh with the result that Gian Singh has been the sole occupant as a tenant of the premises from the year 1955; onwards. On the 21st March, 1958, there was a family partition of the joint Hindu family of which Shri Mohan Lal was the Karta and a decree was obtained. Under this decree the flat in question fell to the share of his son Surinder Lal. The tenant started attorning to him with effect from the 1st of April, 1958. The present petition for ejectment of the tenant was filed by the son, Surinder pal, under Section 13(1)(c) and Section 13(1)(h) of the Act. The grounds were that the landlord required the premises for his own use and for the use of his family and that the tenant had built premises after the coming into force of the 1952 Act, that is, in the year 1955. Both these grounds prevailed with the trial Court and a decree for eviction followed. On appeal by the tenant, the decision of the trial Court was affirmed. The present petition for revision is by the tenant, Gian Singh.

(2.) IT may be mentioned that the lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal as barred by time. The ground on which the appeal was held to be barred by time was that the copies of the judgment and decree were insufficiently stamped. Though the appeal was filed within limitation but as the deficiency was made good after the period of limitation, therefore, the appeal, according to the lower appellate Court, would be treated as having been filed when the deficiency was made good. So far as this matter is concerned, the deficiency can be allowed to be made good at any stage of the proceedings and once it is allowed the appeal would be taken to have been filed on the date when it was originally filed though with deficient court fee. If reference is made to Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the matter can admit of no doubt whatever. I, therefore, hold that the decision of the lower appellate Court that the appeal is barred by time is absolutely erroneous.

(3.) TURNING to Section 13, which is the section dealing with the grounds on which a tenant can be evicted, the proviso in which the various eviction clauses figure provides -