AZIZ AHMED Vs. MST. ZETOO BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for revision and is directed against the concurrent decisions of the Courts below decreeing the landlord's suit for eviction of the tenant. The premises were purchased by the landlady on the 24th April, 1957, and the suit for eviction was filed on the 16th May, 1957, on the only ground that the landlady needed the premises for her own use and for the use of her family members. The trial Court decreed the suit holding that the landlady had succeeded in proving her personal necessity. An appeal was taken against this decision to the lower appellate Court and the lower appellate Court affirmed the decision of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal.

(2.) THE first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order striking off the defence of the tenant is not a legal order. For this contention he relies on a Single Bench decision of this Court in Dr. Savitri Gupta v. Uma Kumari, (1959) 61 P.L.R. 248. Prima facie, that decision supports the contention but in my opinion that has no applicability to the facts of the present case. In the present case, when the application under section 13(5) was made to the trial Court, the period for which the rent was due was claimed to be in arrears and the rate of rent was also specified. No written statement was filed to that application, but a statement was made in Court by the tenant that he did not object to the landlady's application and will comply with order that may be passed. In view of that statement the Court passed the order that the arrears of rent be paid and that the future rent be paid month by month. In Savitri Gupta's case what prevailed with the learned Judge was that it was not clear what the trial Judge intended because according to section 13(5) it is the Judge who is to specify the rate of rent and the period for which rent is due. In that case an application under section 13(5) of the Act did not either specify the rate of rent or the period for which the rent was due. The allegations in this application were also not admitted by the opposite party. On the other hand the order in the present case was passed on the basis of the application, and the statement of the tenant, admitting the facts set out in the landlord's application. Therefore, the order must be read along with the application and the statement. It would thus be clear that in the absence of similar facts in Savitri Gupta's case, the learned Judge was right in holding that the order was not legal. Therefore Savitri Gupta's case has no applicability to the facts of the present case.

(3.) IT was further argued that in view of the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the defence should not have been struck off. This contention is also without force because the matter had been concluded before the 1958 Act came into force and in view of the Supreme Court decision in Karm Singh Sobti v. Sri Partap Chand 2 (Civil Appeal No. 392 of 1963) decided on 29th August 1963, this contention must also fail.