MADAN GOPAL SEHGAL Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of three second appeals Nos. 144 -D, 147 -D and 172 -D of 1964 which have arisen out of the following circumstances.

(2.) MADAN Gopal Sehgal, Hari Ram Das and Parkash Nath Gupta occupied three different portions of the first -floor of house No. 3039, Ward No. XV, Chuna Mandi, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi. Om Parkash filed three separate petitions Nos. 830, 831 and 832 of 1961 under section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, for ejectment of each of them. He alleged that the premises were let out to the tenants for residential purposes, that he was the owner thereof and bona fide required the premises for the residence of himself and dependent members of his family and had no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. He also relied upon clause (k) of section 14 in support of his claim but did not press it and the two Courts below therefore took no notice of the same. The three tenants, namely, Madan Gopal Sehgal, Hari Ram Das and Parkash Nath Gupta, in their separate written -statements admitted the tenancy and the rate of rent payable by them but added that the petitioner was living with his father and had sufficient accommodation with him. Madan Gopal Sehgal and Hari Ram Das further pleaded that the premises in their respective possession had been let out for residential as well as commercial purposes and that being so they could not be ejected from there by the landlord on the basis of his personal requirement. It was also urged that no notice was issued by the petitioner terminating their tenancies and so also they could not be evicted. The Rent Controller consolidated proceedings in petitions Nos. 831 and 832 of 1961 and vide his order dated 3rd September, 1963, accepted both of them and allowed the landlord to recover possession of the premises in question. The order was made executable after six months from the date it was passed. Similarly, by another order of the same date he allowed the landlord's petition No. 830 of 1961 to recover possession of the premises in dispute from Madan Gopal Sehgal also. The order was made executable after six months from the date it was passed. Madan Gopal Sehgal, Hari Ram Das and Parkasu Nath Gupta felt aggrieved from the above orders of their ejectment from the premises in dispute and preferred three separate appeals Nos. 910, 936 and 913 of 1963. The Rent Control Tribunal Consolidated the first two of them and dismissed the same on 25th February, 1964. He also dismissed the third appeal on the same day. In each case the tenants occupants were allowed six months' time to vacate the premises and were also directed to bear costs. The present three second appeals have been preferred against the above orders of the Rent Control Tribunal.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellants finally urged that omission of the landlord respondent to serve notices, terminating the tenancy, on the tenants invalidated his petitions for the appellants' ejectment from the premises and in doing so relied on Bhaiya Punjalal Bhagwanddin v. Dava Bhagwatprasad Prabhuprasad : A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 120, which inter alia laid down: