regarding sub letting, having been decided against the landlord by both the Tribunals, numberlonger survives and it was also number agitated before the High Court.
He also companytended that the landlords requirement for his occupation was number bonafide.
The Rent Controller accepted the plea of the tenant that there was numbersubletting.
K. Mehta, K. L. Mehta and K. R. Nagaraja, for the res pondent.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated December 7, 1970 of the Delhi High Court in S.A.O. No.
These two findings were also companyfirmed in the appeal filed by the landlord before the Rent Control Tribunal.
Accepting this joint request, the learned Judge remanded the case to the Tribunal.
The appellant took on lease, the first floor of the premises in question from the respondent on January 22, 1964 on a monthly rent of Rs.
The respondent who was the owner of the entire premises was then occupying the ground floor.
He denied the allegation of sub letting.
On these findings, the landlords application was dismissed.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The facts leading up to this appeal may be briefly stated.
848 of 1971.
The latter, after a companysideration of the materials on record as well as the extent of the premises in the occupation of the landlord and also having due regard to the number of family members living with the latter, held, in his report dated May 4, 1970, that the portion of the premises in the occupation of the landlord was number reaso nably sufficient for a family companysisting of the landlord, his wife, his son, sons wife and their children.
The latter claim was based under cl.
The tenants plea was that the portion of the premises in his occupation was sufficient for his purpose.
110 D of 1966.
The landlord filed an application, before the Rent Controller on November 26.1964 for eviction of the appellant from the portion in his occupation as lessee, on two grounds a that the tenant has sub let a part of the premises, and b that he required the premises bona fide for his occupation as a residence himself and his family members.
Hence they made a joint request to remand the case to the Tribunal for a finding on the said question on the basis of the evidence already on record.
He also accepted his plea that the requirement of the landlord for his occupation was number bona fide.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Vaidialingam, J. In this appeal, Mr. Hardev Singh, learned companynsel on behalf of the tenant appellant, challenges the judgment and order dated December 7, 1970 of the Delhi High Court in S.A.O. No.
e of the proviso to sub section 1 of S. 14 of the Act, which is as follows that the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has numberother reasonably suitable residential accommodation The tenant opposed the claim of the landlord on both the grounds.
Special leave has been granted by this Court limited to the question whether the High Court was justified, in view of S. 39 2 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 hereinafter called the Act in setting aside the decisions of the two subordinate authorities, dismissing the application filed by the respondent landlord for evicting the appellant.
110 D of 1966, Hardev Singh, K. P. Kapur and H. L. Kapur, for the appel lant.
