H.C. Chopra vs Anand Kumari
1991 Latest Caselaw 16 Del

JUDGMENT

Sunanda Bhandare, J.

(1) The respondent had filed a petition for eviction of the appellant under Section 14(l)(e) and 14(l)(h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Additional Rent Controller by his judgment dated 7.2.1987 dismissed the eviction petition on both the grounds. Being aggrieved, the respondent filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal. The Rent Control Tribunal by the impugned judgment dated 27.7.1987 allowed the petition under Section 14(l)(h) but dismissed the petition under Section 14(l)(e) of the Act. The appellant has challenged this order of the Rent Control Tribunal by way of the present second appeal.

(2) CROSS-OBJECTIONS have been filed by the respondent and eviction is sought also under Section 14(l)(e) of the Act. One of the main contentions of the respondent is that the appellant has constructed some additional floors at a house which belongs to him at 25/30 New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi. The case of the appellant is that he had given that house to his first wife and he has strained relations with his first wife and, therefore, he has no legal right to occupy that house. During the pendency of the appeal, Cm 2126/90 was filed by the respondent under Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in which it was submitted that the appellant has constructed some further floors on the house at Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi.

(3) During the course of the arguments, I considered it appropriate to appoint a Local Commissioner to visit the site and report regarding further construction on the house at New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi. The Local Commissioner has filed his report. He has stated that now there are five floors in the house at New Rajinder Nagar belonging to the appellant. Three floors have been recently constructed and are unoccupied.

(4) It is well-settled that subsequent events can be taken into consideration event at an appellate stage. Since accommodation is now available to the appellant, there is no reason why he should continue to get protection under Section 14(1) of the Act. The respondent is a widow. She has also filed a petition under Section 14-D of the Act which is pending in the court of the Additional Rent Controller. The appellant still insists on contending -that he has no legal right to continue in the house at New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi because he has gifted that house to his wife. I find that there is nothing on record to show that there are strained relations between the appellant and his first wife or that the house has been gifted. In fact, it is contended now that the appellant constructed two floors on the house but agreed with his first wife that the premises will be sold and he Along with his first wife will share the sale proceeds. In this view of the matter, I find no reason to grant any relief to the appellant in this second appeal. A prayer is however made for grant of time to vacate the premises. The appellant is present in court. His statement has been recorded separately. The appellant has given an undertaking to this Court that he will vacate the premises and will hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the premises to the respondent on or before 30th June 1991 and that he will continue to pay the compensation for use and occupation of the premises at the agreed rate by the 15th of each succeeding month. He has also undertaken that he will not sub-let, assign or part with possession of the premises to any third person while the same are in his occupation. The undertaking given by the appellant is accepted.

(5) In the circumstances, the second appeal is dismissed. However in view of the undertaking, the appellant is granted time to vacate the premises till 30th June 1991. No costs.