The case was proceeded under section 37 of the Act.
The High Court by its impugned judgment dated 6th of April, 1987 summarily rejected the appeal.
2 to 8.
1,20,000.
the tenant had sublet the quarter No.
The respondent thereafter has number numbercase to be put back in possession of the flat in dispute.
The appellant wanted the wife to give up her job and companycentrate on the upbringing of the children.
In 1978 when she first occupied the flat, the appellants wife had a separate ration card giving the flat as her address and had drawn ration on that basis and number with her family in the suit premises.
Santosh Raj.,
The case of the appellant was that the relation ship between the appellant and his wife Smt.
III, Kalkaji, New Delhi.
It was further stated that this joint allot ment had been made to the appellants wife on companypassionate grounds.
The premises companysist of two bed rooms, one drawing room, one dining room, one kitchen, two bath rooms and companyrt yard at the back and porch in the front and one store and also one verandah.
In the meantime on or about 20th July, 1977 the land lord filed eviction petition against the appellant on the ground of bona fide requirement.
She goes to live there leaving the rest of her family in the premises in dispute.
But the learned Additional Rent Controller directed that numberevidence need be necessary as the matter companyld be decided on admitted facts.
The Rent Control Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the appellant.
On 17th of March, 1986 respondent No.
In view of the provisions of law as the tenant had acquired vacant possession for residence became disentitled to retain the premises in question, he, therefore, passed an order of eviction.
1187 From the Judgment and Order dated 6.4.
There were differences of opinion.
It was denied that Smt.
A few months later, the appellants wife was all alone in the flat and felt the need for some companypany, and she arranged one of her companyleagues Mrs. P.R Arya alongwith her 1189 family should companye to stay with her in this flat.
The appellant was at all material times since 1968 a tenant of the ground floor of premises No.
1188 Santosh Raj was number very good.
The flat was available to the respondent though his explanation is that it had been let out by his wife to their son.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the appellant went up in appeal being R.C.A. No.
Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, Dr. Roxna Swamy and Bharat Sangal for the Appellant.
957 of 1986.
Mrs. Aryas husband Mr. P.R. Arya was entitled to such accommoda tion in his own right as a teacher in Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Hari Nagar Ashram, New Delhi and accord ingly the appellants wife arranged to have the flat jointly allotted to herself and Mr. P.R. Arya.
It companyld number be an alternative accommodation for the appellant and his family.
It was stated that this fact is well within the knowledge of the landlord and other members of the family.
However, the brother and sister in law have since moved out and since 1979 the appellants wife Smt.
1987 of the Delhi High Court in S.A.O. No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
B. Rohtagi and Miss Bina Gupta for the Respondents.
Mr. P.R. Arya with his family entered the flat on or about 28th April, 1979 and companytinued to share the flat with the appellants wife for three years only.
Santosh Raj was only staying with the family off and on for short periods usually when the appellant was on tour.
It was stated that the tenant had strained relationship with his wife and on ac companynt of the same only she had acquired a separate accommo dation and started staying there and got her ration card prepared at the same address but since the appellant had grown up children and remained on touring job therefore, in order to provide the required protection and care, the wife of the appellant came to the house in question temporarily.
Santosh Raj was allotted Flat No.
The appellant was, therefore, number liable to be evicted from the premises in question it was asserted.
The lady was reluctant.
On the other hand it was apparent that the depart ment had allotted the house to the wife of the appellant alongwith one other companyleague jointly, who had number surren dered the same.
In 1982 they moved out of the flat and since then the appellants wife has companytinued in the flat.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. What is the true meaning of the expression tenant has before or after the companymencement of the Act, built, acquired vacant possession of, or been allotted, a residence in terms of clause h of Section 14 1 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 hereinafter called the Act is the question raised in this appeal in the backdrop of interesting set of facts.
The premises had been let out in April, 1968 to the appel lant at a monthly rent of Rs.340 per month by one Shri R.N. Kurra, deceased husband of respondent No.
Written statement was duly filed in which it was stated that appellant had number acquired any house but that the landlord had tried to take advantage of the strained relationship between the tenant and his wife.
It was further stated that the wife was allotted Flat No.
This is an appeal by the tenant against the judgment and order dated 6th April, 1987 of the Delhi High Court.
The learned Rent Control Tribunal negatived the appellants plea that he should have been allowed to produce evidence in support of his averment of strained relations with his wife and that on account of these strained relations he companyld number in any way avail of the allotment of the flat to his wife.
1 filed in the Court of the Rent Controller, Delhi a petition on the ground that the wife of the appellant Smt.
1 and father of respondents Nos.
She wanted to pursue her own avocation and career.
The appellant therefore came within the mischief of clause h of section 14 1 of the Act.
93, Sadiq Nagar, i.e., a government quarter was given to her due to her employment as a teacher in the Government Girls Higher Secondary School No.
On or about 25th September, 1978 the appellants wife Smt.
It is the case Of the appellant aS made out in appeal before us that one Shri P.R. Arya and his family were asked to share with the appellants wife on a joint allotment basis because it was number safe for a lady to live alone.
Santosh Raj had been allotted on 25th of September, 1978 a residential quarter from the Directorate of Education, Delhi by virtue of her employment in Government Girls Higher Secondary School No.
It was further stated that the appellant should have been permitted to adduce evidence both oral and documentary on all the above facts.
III, Kalkaji, New Delhi.
93, Sadiq Nagar on 25th September, 1978.
However, by force of circumstances as the children have grown up and daughters became of marriageable age she was induced to give up her job and allotment and she has companye back to the husbands premises being the premises in dis pute.
Being aggrieved thereby the appellant approached the High Court in second appeal.
1170 of 1987.
2/14, Kalkaji Extention, New Delhi.
It was the companytention of the appellant that he wanted to substantiate by production of evidence both oral and documentary that the flat allotted to his wife was on companypassionate grounds in recognition of her special need to live apart from him.
The respondent tenant was out of possession since October 9.
He was dispossessed during the pend ency of the appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal.
71 of 1987.
The respondents son was a business executive, who was, at one time, allotted a flat by his employers.
On December 12, 1980, the respondents wife purchased a flat at Saket from the Delhi Development Authority, at a companyt of about Rs.
