Skip to content


Trilok Nath Vs. Sardari Lal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSecond Appeal No. 281 of 1973
Judge
Reported in1979RLR535
ActsDelhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 14
AppellantTrilok Nath
RespondentSardari Lal
Advocates: D.P. Gupta and; R.K. Agarwal, Advs
Excerpt:
it was adjudged under section 151 of the civil procedure code,1908, that if there was a mistake in the statement recorded in the court, same should have been pointed out when it was signed - since no such mistake was pointed out to the tribunal, it could not be allowed to be raised for the first time in the second appeal - .....went into the entire evidence again and re-appreciated. on careful appreciation of the entire evidence the tribunal came to the conclusion 'the landlord was in occupation of four regular rooms, stores, kitchen and bath'. one of the stores 3-a measures 7' x 14'. it is now in the evidence of the appellant that there was a mezzanine over the store 3-a, which was also with the landlord. the landlord admitted that there was a mezzanine above the verandah 2-a, which is 8' wide and 14' in length which was with him. in my view the landlord required at the most 5 rooms one for himself and his wife, two for his two married sons, one for unmarried son and one for the daughters. he has already 5 rooms, as stated above because the store 3-a is equal to room. besides these rooms he is in.....
Judgment:

S.B. Wad, J.

(1) This second appeal is directed against the order of Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi dated May 5 1973. Through the said order the learned Rent Control Tribunal rejected the appellant-landlord's petition for eviction of the respondent-tenant u/s 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The suit premises consist of a mezzanine, kitchen gallery and a common bath room in House No. A-1/14, Krishan Nagar, Delhi. Suit for eviction was filed by the landlord, inter-alia, on the ground of bona fide personal need.

(2) The Additional Controller, Shri Jaspal Singh, passed the order of eviction against the tenant under Section 14(1)(e).

(3) In the first appeal, the Rent Control Tribunal went into the entire evidence again and re-appreciated. On careful appreciation of the entire evidence the Tribunal came to the conclusion 'the landlord was in occupation of four regular rooms, stores, kitchen and bath'. One of the stores 3-A measures 7' x 14'. It is now in the evidence of the appellant that there was a mezzanine over the store 3-A, which was also with the landlord. The landlord admitted that there was a mezzanine above the verandah 2-A, which is 8' wide and 14' in length which was with him. In my view the landlord required at the most 5 rooms one for himself and his wife, two for his two married sons, one for unmarried son and one for the daughters. He has already 5 rooms, as stated above because the store 3-A is equal to room. Besides these rooms he is in occupation of verandah and mezzanine. This accommodation, in my view, is reasonably suitable for the landlord and members of bids family. There is no evidence that the landlord paid income-tax or that his daughter requires separate rooms. Keeping the social status etc. this accommodation was reasonably suitable.' On these findings of fact, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accommodation in the possession of the landlord was reasonably sufficient for his family and that he did not require additional accommodation in the possession of the tenant. By his order dated May 5, 1973, the Tribunal, thereforee, allowed the appeal of the tenant and dismissed the application of the landlord for eviction of the tenant. In the submissions addressed in this Court on behalf of the landlord, no illegality of the questions of law is pointed out.

(4) The counsel for the landlord contends that in the landlord's statement before the court, it was erroneously recorded that another tenant vacated a room in April, 1969 and that the correct statement of the landlord was that the room was vacated in April, 1967. The counsel for the landlord further contends that the Tribunal committed an error of law in assuming that the other tenant vacated the room in April 1969, i.e. after the filing of the eviction petition. There is no substance in this submission. If there was a mistake in the statement of the landlord recorded in the court same should have been pointed out when he signed it. At any rate, no such mistake was pointed out to the Tribunal at the time of the arguments, I cannot allow this question to be raised for the first time in the second appeal.

(5) The other submissions namely, whether a mezzanine floor and a store can be used for his residential purposes or that whether room No. 2 was being used actually for residential purposes or that whether the landlord is an income tax prayer, are all pure questions of fact. After considering the entire evidence the Tribunal has rejected these contentions.

(6) As no ground is made out for my interference, the appeal stands dismissed with costs.

--- *** ---


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //