DAYA GUPTA Vs. JAI KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case has been heard at the admission stage and is being finally disposed of after the parties had been heard at length. Eviction petition was filed against late Shri Chander Mani tenant who died during the pendency of the appeal before the Appellate Authority below. Premises in dispute consists of three rooms, kitchen, both and laterine situate in the ground floor of the building known as Shankar Kuti, Subhash Nagar, Ruldu Bhatha, Shimla. According to the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the landlords) these premises were required by them for providing accommodation to petitioner No. 1 Jai Kumar and his family members who was residing in a one -room tenement along with his family in Amrosia Building, Ram Bazar, Shimla which accommodation was not sufficient at all for him. Further case of the respondents was that family of petitioner No. 1 consisted of himself, his mother and four minor children between the ages of five to ten years. It may be appropriate to mention here that this petition was filed on 1 -9 -1989. While claiming eviction of the tenants, description of the premises in occupation of the landlords other than Jai Kumar was given as also details of eviction petitions having been filed in respect of other tenants for the requirement of other landlords. Arrears of rent was also a ground for evicton of the tenants. Since the rent was paid, this ground was given up.

(2.) This petition was resisted and contested by the tenants, who pleaded that the petition is not maintainable in its present form, it being mala fide as also the landlords are estopped from filing the petition on account of their own acts, deeds, conduct, lapses, admissions, laches, etc On merits, while disputing the requirement of the landlords, it was pleaded that the petitioner is aimed at enhancing the rent as also landlords have not come to the Court with clean hands and thus dismissal of the ejectment petition was prayed for. In the rejoinder filed by the landlords, pleas raised in the petition were re -affirmed and those which were contrary to such pleas in the reply of the respondents were controverted.

(3.) On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues: -