KRISHNA AGGARWAL Vs. SATYA DEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The premises known as 2 Todar Mal Lane, New Delhi, belonged at One time to Lakhmi Chand. He let the same to Sri Krishan Aggarwal for purposes of residence on a monthly rent of Rs. 38/3/-. Lakhmi Chand gifted the promises to his son Satya Dev on 19th June, 1956, The donee filed the present suit for eviction of the tenant on 27th August, 1956 on the ground that he required the premises bona fide for his residence and that he had no other suitable place for this purpose. The tenant inter alia pleaded (i) that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and (2) that the plaintiff did not bona fide require the premises for his residence. The trial court rejected both these defences but made the ejectment decree conditional on the filing of an affidavit that the plaintiff's marriage would take place within the next three months. The tenant appealed against the ejectment decree while the landlord filed cross-objections, to get the condition sot aside. The Additional Senior Sub-Judge Delhi dismissed the tenant's appeal and accepted the cross-objections. The tenant has filed this revision petition under Section 35 of the Rent Control Act 1952 and has challenged the decision of the lower Court on both points.

(2.) Now Lakhmi Chand was possessed of family property and also acquired property. He has three sons. The family resided in a joint family house situated on Panchkuin Head, New Delhi. On 8th December, 1954 the joint family property was partitioned and this house at Panclikuin Koad fell to the share of Arjan Dev another son of Lakhmi Chand. In the partition deed the house in dispute was described as the acquired property of Lakhmi Chand and was not partitioned. The family however according to the tenant's counsel continued residing in the Panchkuin Road house. On 19th of June, 1956 the house now in dispute was gifted to the plaintiff and the possession was duly delivered to him. In these circumstances the lower courts rightly held that the petitioner became the tenant of Satya Dev by operation of law.

(3.) Admittedly the Punchkuin Road house consists of three rooms and a Barsati. Arjan Dev has a wife and three minor children. His parents are also staying with him. There is therefore no accommodation for the plaintiff who is 24 years old in the Punchkuin Road house particularly when he is anxious to get married- It has been found that he has no other suitable accommodation for his residence. In these circumstances both the lower courts have held that the plaintiff's' requirement is bona fide. No cogent reason has been advanced before me for setting aside this finding of fact. I therefore hold that the plaintiff is entitled to evict the tenant under Section 13 (1) (c) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952.