Skip to content


S.N. Bhatia Vs. Y.D. Sharma - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSecond Appeal No. 302 of 1980
Judge
Reported in1981(2)DRJ51; 1981RLR100
ActsDelhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 24
AppellantS.N. Bhatia
RespondentY.D. Sharma
Advocates: C.L. Sachdev and; J.P. Gupta, Advs
Cases ReferredV. D. Chettiar v. Y. Ammal
Excerpt:
delhi rent control act, 1958, section 24 for seeking eviction on the ground of building on vacant land of tenanted premises. (b) it is not necessary that a person who wants to construct a buttings should be capable of investing the entire amount from his own pocket. (c) it is for the tenant to lead evidence to show that undue hardship would be caused to him if he is evicted from the open space of the premises under the tenancy. - .....that the landlord is ready and willing to commence with the work on the said plot and that no undue hardship would be caused to the appellant-tenant. the learned counsel for the appellant contends that there is no vacant land. a reference to the plan shows that the major portion of plot no. b-15 is an open land and there is building on plot no. 16. admittedly, the appellant has been a tenant with respect to the entire land on plots no. 15 and 16 together with the strucrure on plot no. 16 and some structure on plot no. 15. the remaining portion of plot no. 16 is an open space. the next point of the appellant is that the respondent is not ready and willing as he has not placed on record the material to show funds for the construction, estimate for which is about rs. 45,000.00 . from.....
Judgment:

Sultan Singh, J.

(1) This is second appeal under section 39 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) challenging the order dated 1-5-80 of the Rent Control Tribunal confirming the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 30-1-80 and finally maintaining that the appellant is liable to be evicted from plot No. B-15 Kailash Colony under section 24 of the Act. The controller and the Tribunal have concurrently come to the conclusion that the landlord is ready and willing to commence with the work on the said plot and that no undue hardship would be caused to the appellant-tenant. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that there is no vacant land. A reference to the plan shows that the major portion of plot No. B-15 is an open land and there is building on plot No. 16. Admittedly, the appellant has been a tenant with respect to the entire land on plots No. 15 and 16 together with the strucrure on plot No. 16 and some structure on plot No. 15. The remaining portion of plot No. 16 is an open space. The next point of the appellant is that the respondent is not ready and willing as he has not placed on record the material to show funds for the construction, estimate for which is about Rs. 45,000.00 . From the evidence on record it has been proved that the landlord has Rs. 21,000.00 as bank balance and odd besides fixed deposit of Rs. 5,000.00 . Over and above Rs. 26.000.00 the respondent led evidence to show that he can arrange funds from his brother and others. His brother has deposed that he can advance to the tune of Rs. 20,000.00 to Rs. 22,000.00 . Another witness has deposed that he can advance Rs. 3,000.00 to the respondent. Mr. Sachdeva however, contends that for determining whether the landlord is ready and willing he must disclose that he can construct the property from his own funds. It does not stand to reason that a person who wants to construct a building should be capable of investing the entire amount towards construction from his own pocket. He may make arrangements with financial institutions or private institutions. He may take loan from Life Insurance Corporation of India and others. Ready and willing does not mean that the landlord must be possessed of all funds required for construction of the property. It means his capacity to arrange funds' The next point urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that there is nothing on record to show that undue hardship would not be caused to the appellant- tenant. It is for the tenant to lead evidence to show that undue hardship would be caused to him if he is evicted from the open space of the premises under his tenancy. Both the Courts have come to the conclusion that there would be no undue hardship if eviction order is passed with respect to the open space of the tenancy premises. Lastly, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent-landlord ought to have served a notice of eviction under section 106 Tpa read with the terms of lease. It appears that the tenancy was for a fixed period of eleven months. No notice is required to be served for claiming eviction under the Act as held by the Supreme Court in V. D. Chettiar v. Y. Ammal, 1979 R.L.R. 472. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment.


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