KRISHAN LAL CHOPRA Vs. PANNA LAL AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAI Sahib Krishan Lal Chopra, Appellant, was the owner of the premises in dispute, which is house No. 35, on Babar Road in New Delhi. This property belonged to the Ministry of Rehabilitation and was purchased by the Appellant in a public auction held on 26th December, 1955. The sale certificate was issued in his favour on 14th November, 1960, wherein it was recited that he had become the owner thereof with effect from 30th July, 1956. It appears that this house was taken on rent by Amar Nath and his cousin, Panna Lal, Respondents from the Government at a monthly rent of Rs. 40. After the purchase of the same by the Appellant, the Respondents attorned to him as tenants. After giving a notice to the Respondents on 15th February, 1961, for vacating these premises, the landlord, on 31st July, 1961, filed an application for their eviction under Section 14(1)(c) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (59 of 1958)(hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground that the premises were required for occupation by himself and his family and he had no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation with him. It was alleged that he was a retired officer of 75 years of age and he and his wife were suffering from heart trouble and high blood pressure. This house, it may be mentioned, consisted of five rooms with a varandah, kitchen, store, bath -room etc. It was further alleged that Amar Nath, Respondent, owned three residential houses in Delhi.

(2.) THIS petition was resisted by the tenants, who controverted the allegations made by the landlord and pleaded that the Appellant did not require the premises bona fide for his own residence. He was a tenant of Rai Bahadur Mathura Dass and the accommodation in his occupation was much more than his requirements. As a matter of fact, the landlord wished to sell the house and even an agreement of sale was made with the Respondents. It was agreed that Rs. 42,000 would be paid in cash to the landlord, out of which a sum of Rs. 2,000 was paid in advance and the same remained with him for about one week, but later on, it was returned to the Respondents. Rai Bahadur Mathura Dass and Shri Anand Raj Surana, alongwith two other gentlemen, had come to settle this bargain. The motive for getting this house vacated was to sell the same in open market and there was no intention to occupy the same, as it was a very big house and much more than the requirements of the landlord, who were only husband and wife. There was no other member of the family residing with them in Delhi. It was admitted that Amar Nath Respondent did own three houses, but they were all in occupation of tenants since a long time. Panna Lal, Respondent, however, did not own any house in Delhi.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by this order, the tenants went in appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal. He confirmed the finding of the Controller that the landlord had become owner of the property with effect from 30th July, 1956 and his application for ejectment, having been filed after the expiry of five years, that is, on 31st July, 1961, was not premature. He further held that the family of the landlord consisted of three sons and four daughters, besides himself and his wife. All his four daughters were married. His one son was employed in the Army and was drawing Rs. 1,000 per mensem as pay. His other son was doing business at Dehra Dun and was residing there with his family. His third son was residing in Delhi in a rented house and was doing his own work. Since none of his seven children was dependent on him, the family of the landlord, therefore, consisted of himself and his wife only and it was their needs that had to be looked to. It was also held that the present accommodation in possession of the landlord consisted of two rooms, one drawing -cum -dining room and one store -room, besides a bath and a latrine. It was on the first floor and the landlord was paying Rs. 165 per mensem for the same. According to the Rent Control Tribunal it was quite sufficient and reasonably suitable for the needs of the landlord and his wife. He confirmed the decision of the Controller and rejected the plea of the illness of the landlord and his wife. He, however, reversed the finding of the Controller to the effect that the landlord should be allowed to occupy the premises in dispute for economic reasons and for financial advantage. According to the Rent Control Tribunal, firstly, no such ground of economic reasons was raised in the ejectment application and, secondly, there was no provision in Section 14 of the Act for directing ejectment on such a ground. It was also found that the eviction application was not made mala fide on the ground that some 2 1/2 /3 years ago the landlord had accepted Rs. 2,000 as earnest money for the sale of this house, and later on he had changed his mind. Since the landlord had got a reasonably suitable accommodation for himself and his wife, who was the only dependent member of his family, the Rent Control Tribunal accepted the appeal, set aside the order of the Controller and dismissed the ejectment application filed by him. Against this order, the present appeal has been filed by the landlord.