V N SARIN Vs. AJIT KUMAR POPLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 (hereinafter referent as the Act) came up for hearing before P. D. Sharma J. on 13th August, 1964. The learned Judge by an order of the same date directed that in view of the general importance of the question involved in the appeal the matter should be decided by a larger Bench. Accordingly the papers were laid before hon'ble Chief Justice and the matter has been placed before us for decision. The question that presented some difficulty to the learned Single Judge was whether the partition of the coparcenary property amount the coparceners could be said to be "an acquisition by transfer" within the meaning of section 14 (6) of the Act. The facts so far a they are relevant for our purposes may now be stated: The premises are part of bungalow situate at Racquet Court Road, Civil Lines Delhi. This bungalow belonged to the joint Hindu family consisting of father (B. S. Poplai)and his two sons (Major Ajit kumar Poplai and Vinod Kumar Poplai ). The members of the joint Hindu family partitioned the coparcenary property. The premises in dispute which are under the tenancy of V. N. Sarin appellant fell to the share of major Ajit Kumar Poplai. Shri V. N. Sarin has been inducted into the premises as a tenant by the father B. S. Poplai before the partition at a monthly rental of Rs. 80/- Ajit Kumar Poplai brought an application for the eviction of the appellant on the ground that he required that premises bona fide for his own residence and that of his wife and two children who are dependent on him. He impleaded his fatter as a second petitioners with him. The petition was contested by the appellant-tenant on three grounds:-that major Ajit Kumar Poplai was not his landlord in as much as the tenant was not aware of the partition and, therefore, he could not file the petition;

(2.) THAT even if Ajit Kumar was the landlord he did not bona fide require the premises for his own use or for the use of his family members as he was serving in the Army and was posted at Delhi and the serving in the army authorities were required to proved residence to the petitioners; and

(3.) THAT in any case the pt having acquired the premises by partition which amounted to transfer of premises to him could not maintain the present petition in view of the provisions of S. 14 (6) of the Act within a period of five years of the acquisition of the premises by transfer.