Rameshwar Dutt Sharma vs Chandu Lal Sharma
1998 Latest Caselaw 670 Del

JUDGMENT

C.M. Nayar, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the Order passed by Shri M.A.Khan, Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi. The learned Judge allowed the appeal of the respondent landlord under the provisions of Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and passed an order of eviction giving six months time to vacate the premises.

2. The appellant Rameshwar Dutt Sharma is a tenant in a portion of the property No.W.Z.-72, Sri Nagar, Shakurbasti, Delhi on a monthly rent of Rs.60/- besides Rs.10/- for electric charges and Rs.5/- for water charges. The respondent filed an eviction petition under Sections 14(1)(a) and 14(1)(e) of the Act. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the petition and held that the respondent had not made out a case under either of the provisions. The plea for bona fide requirement for additional accommodation was, therefore, rejected. The Appellate Court examined the contentions of the parties for grounds of eviction under the provisions of 14(1)(e) and the findings recorded in respect of 14(1)(e) were not challenged. Admittedly the family of the respondent consisted of himself, his wife and two children, one daughter aged about 10 years and one son aged about 14 years at the time of filing of the petition. The respondent, it was stated, was in possession of one small room on the first floor and one kothri on the ground floor in his possession and he was not in possession of any other accommodation and was an employee of M.C.D. getting a salary of Rs.500/- per month at that time. The| Rent Control Tribunal recorded the findings of fact to the following effect:-

(a) That the respondent was not in possession of any other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and this fact was also not denied by learned counsel for the appellant who appeared before the Tribunal.

(b) The respondent was in possession of one room on the first floor and a small kothri on the ground floor as his family consisted of himself, his wife and two school going children. The accommodation, in possession of the respondent was not held to be reasonably suitable which fact was also conceded by learned counsel for the appellant.

3. In view of the above findings an eviction order was passed under Sub-clause (e) of Section 14(1) of the Act and appeal of the respondent was allowed. The appellant was granted six months time to vacate the premises. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that part of the premises were let out to Babu Ram on 9th January 1984 as will be indicated from the rent deed executed on that date. Therefore, the need of the respondent cannot be termed as bona fide. The accommodation allegedly let out to another tenant Babu Ram in January 1984 was not established as the said Babu Ram came in possession of the premises prior to that date and only a rent deed was executed on 9th January, 1984. The learned Rent Control Tribunal, however, did not accept the contention and came to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the Rent Controller are factually incorrect and it cannot be said that the claim of the respondent was in any manner malafide.

4. Be that as it may, the question about the family of the respondent as well as of his requirement are not in dispute. The premises for which eviction is sought comprises of a small accommodation and the respondent himself is in possession of accommodation which cannot be termed to be sufficient for himself and his family. The Tribunal has arrived at findings of fact after appreciation of evidence and it will not be open for this Court to reappraise the same in the present Second Appeal. There is no illegality and infirmity in the Order and the present appeal is, accordingly, devoid of force and is dismissed.

5. The appellant is, however, granted a further time till 28th February, 1999 to vacate the tenanted premises. The appellant shall file an affidavit of undertaking in this regard to vacate the premises on or before that date and also pay the arrears of rent/damages, if any, within four weeks and continue to pay the current rent at the rate of Rs.25/- per month which has been accepted as the rent for the premises by the learned Rent Controller, on the tenth day of each succeeding month. In case no undertaking is filed within the specified period, the decree for eviction shall become executable forthwith.

6. There will be no order as to costs.