GANPAT RAM SHARMA V. GAYATRI DEVI, AIR 1987 SC 2016
FACTS
Three appellants, Jai Bhagwan, Pearey Lal and Ganpat Ram, were inducted into premises by the then landlord, Shri Dina Nath.
In 1952 the land and building situated at No. A-6/25, at Krishna Nagar, Delhi was purchased by one Nathu Ram, father of the appellant Ganpat Ram and Pearey Lal together with the appellant Jai Bhagwan, his son-in-law. The building consisted of two rooms, two kitchens and a barsati.
In 1958 Ganpat Ram was allotted a DDA Quarter No. 3/7 at Village Seelampur, Shahdara.
The present landlord, the respondent herein, purchased the suit premises from the erstwhile landlord. Dina Nath. The present landlord applied to the competent authority under the Slum Act for permission to evict the appellants from the said premises. The competent authority under the Slum Act granted permission to the landlord to proceed in eviction against the three appellants. The respondent herein filed three eviction suits against the appellants on the grounds contained in Section 14(1)(a), (h) and (j) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Additional Rent Controller: held that ground u/s 14(1)(h) was made out against all the three appellants.
Rent Control Tribunal: confirmed the decree in ejectment on appeal u//s 14(1)(h) of the Act.
High Court: construed Section 14(1)(h) of the Act to mean that a building constructed by the tenant which is outside the purview of the Delhi Rent Act on the date of the application for ejectment, was yet within Section 14(1)(h) and the tenant was liable to be ejected.
ISSUE
Does the suitability etc. of the alternative accommodation acquired by the tenant matter in order to prevent him from eviction from the tenanted premises?
JUDGEMENT
The court observed that, the High Court noted that the object of clause (h), as is apparent, is not to allow the tenant more than one residence in Delhi. Therefore, according to High Court there are e different circumstances in which a tenant was liable to be evicted. These are:
(i) if the tenant had built a new residence, or
(ii) if he had acquired vacant possession of it or
(iii) if he had been allotted a residence.
Therefore, if the landlord is successful in proving any one of the causes, he is entitled to an order of eviction against the tenant.
The words 'built' and 'allotted' do not mean that after building residence or after allotment of a residence, the tenant must also acquire its possession.
The landlady in the eviction application alleged that the tenants had built and acquired vacant possession of a residential house at A-6/25, Krishna Nagar, near Lal Quarter, Delhi. It was denied by all the tenants but the Controller and the Tribunal on the basis of the evidence on record concluded that the three tenants have built and have also acquired vacant possession of the said residential premises. It was further held that the relatives of the three tenants were in actual physical possession of the said house at Krishna Nagar.
Therefore, the court was of the same opinion as that of the High Court.
It was therefore held that the landlord in order to be entitled to evict the tenant must establish one of the alternative facts positively, either that the tenant has built, or acquired vacant possession of or has been allotted a residence. It is essential that the ingredients must be pleaded by the landlord who seeks eviction but after the landlord has proved or stated that the tenant has built, acquired vacant possession of or has been allotted a residence, whether it is suitable or not, and whether the same can be really an alternative accommodation for the tenant or not, are within the special knowledge of the tenant and he must prove and establish those facts.
In the premises, the court was of the view that the High Court was right and the appeals must fail and are accordingly dismissed with costs.