Delhi District Court
Badri Bhagat Jhandewala Temple Society ... vs Sh. Shanti Swaroop (Deceased) on 19 September, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI O.P. GUPTA,
DJ&ASJ-In-Charge(West)/ARCT,DELHI
***
RCT No. 68/2009 ( Old No. 16/07 )
Unique ID NO. 02401C038272007
Badri Bhagat Jhandewala Temple Society (Regd).
Through its Secretary Ramesh Chand Gupta
Jhandewala Temple, Desh Bandu Gupta Road,
New Delhi. ....Appellant
Versus
Sh. Shanti Swaroop (deceased)
Through his legal heirs
1. Smt. Janak Rani (Wife )
2. Sh. Avtar Chand ( Son )
3. Sh. Parveen Kumar ( Son)
4. Sh. Susheel Kumar ( Son)
All R/o 10196, Jhandewala Temple Estate
Opp. Saraswati Bal Mandir,
Jhandewala, New Delhi. ....Respondents
AND
RCT No. 39A/2011 ( Old No. 11/2008)
Unique ID No. 02401C0425142011
Sh. Shanti Swaroop ( deceased)
Through his Lrs
(1) Smt. Janak Rani
(2) Sh. Avtar Chand
(3) Sh. Parveen Kumar
(4) Sh. Sushil Kumar
All residents of 10196, Jhandewalan,
New Delhi 110055. ....Appellant
Versus
M/s Badri Bhagat Jhandewala Temple Society,
through its Secretary Shri Ramesh Chand Gupta,
Jhandewalan Temple, DBG Road,
RCT No. 68/09 1 of 26
2
New Delhi. ...Respondent
Date of Institution : 23.10.2007
Arguments completed on : 08.09.2011
Date of Order : 19.09.2011
O R D E R
1. It is shocking that the eviction petition filed in 1985 is awaiting its decision for the last 26 years till date.
2. By this common judgment I shall be deciding aforesaid two appeals as they arises out of same order dated 6.9.2007 passed by Ld. ARC vide which eviction petition was partly allowed and partly dismissed. Badri Bhagat Jhandewala Society ( hereinafter called Landlord ) against Shanti Sarup filed an eviction petition (hereinafter called tenant) on the ground of non payment of rent, misuse, substantial damages, misuse in violation of terms of superior lease and requirement for furtherance of its activities. Duing pendency of the petition ground u/s 14(1) (k) DRC Act viz misuse of terms of superior lease was given up as the land was private land and did not belong to DDA.
3. Eviction petition on the ground of non payment of rent was RCT No. 68/09 2 of 26 3 allowed and proceedings for consideration of grant of benefit u/s 14(2) DRC Act were kept pending. The same are still pending for want of these appeals and are fixed for 20.09.2011 before Ld. ARC. Petition u/s 14(1) (c) DRC Act for misuse was allowed against which the tenant has filed appeal No. 39A/11 supra.
4. Petition u/s 14(1) (j) for substantial damages was dismissed against which landlord has filed appeal No. 68/09 supra. Ground u/s 22 DRC Act of requirement of furtherance of its activities was not at all dealt by Ld. ARC . So the same has also been made a ground of appeal in appeal No. 68/09 supra.
5. The appeal of tenant was dismissed by Ld. Predecessor of this court as being barred by limitation vide order dated 3.6.2010. Application for condonation was dismissed. Application for review was dismissed vide order dated 12.08.2010. The tenant preferred CM (M) 1294/10 titled as Satish Swaroop through :Lrs Versus M/s Badri Bhagat Jhandewala Society which was allowed by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 8.7.2011. The delay was condoned and RCT No. 68/09 3 of 26 4 matter was remanded back to this court with directions to dispose of both the appeals within six months.
6. The case of the landlord is that two rooms in a area of about 12 Sq. Yds in property No. 10196, Jhandewala, Desh Bandu Gupta Road, New Delhi was let out to respondent @ Rs. 12/- per month exclusive of house tax, electricity and water charges etc. The same were let out sometime in 1967 and there was no written agreement. The tenant has neither paid nor tendered arrears of rent w.e.f. August 1980 inspite of notice of demand having been duly served upon him, within two months of receipt of notice dated 4.4.1984. The tenant is using the premises for commercial purposes though the same was let out to him only for residential purpose, without obtaining consent in writing of the landlord. He has not stopped the mis-user inspite of notice. The tenant has caused or permitted to cause substantial damages to the premises in as much as he is raising unauthorised construction upon the premises inspite of objection by the landlord. The said construction is against building bye-laws of MCD as well as DDA and thus exposed the landlord to penal action. The area RCT No. 68/09 4 of 26 5 has been earmarked to be used only for religious purpose by DDA. Thus any use contrary to the said purpose, particularly commercial use is in violation of provisions of Delhi Development Act. The landlord is a society registered under Societies Registration Act 1860 having its object to maintain library of religious books and to maintain Jhandewalan Devi Temple and also to construct and maintain Dharamshala, shops and other building in Jhandewala Estate and to do such other acts as mentioned in the memorandum and articles of Association. Thus it is a public institution as provided u/s 22 DRC Act and requires the premises bonafidely for the furtherance of its activities. In para 19 of the petition it was pleaded that in reply to notice of the petitioner, it was stated by the respondent that petitioner had become defunct society which was not correct. The society is very much functioning and is holding regular meeting and is managing the affairs of Jhandewala Estate right from 1944 till today. One ex-pujari of the temple for a particular period mis-appropriated the funds of society by taking the offerings/donations offered at Jhandewala Devi Temple to his use. The society has to file a RCT No. 68/09 5 of 26 6 suit against him for rendition of account which was pending in High Court of Delhi as suit No. 447/82. In the said suit on the request of the petitioner a Local Commissioner was appointed under whose supervision the society was functioning. The accounts are duly kept and audited by Chartered Accountant. Money belonging to the petitioner is kept in Nationalised Bank. No expenses are incurred without due sanction from Managing Committee of the society as well as Commissioner appointed by Hon'ble High Court.
7. The tenant filed a written statement raising preliminary objection that petitioner is neither landlord nor owner and does not have any locus standi to file the present petition. The petitioner is not a legal entity. It has become defunct. The lease in favour of petitioner society granted by DDA had been canceled and notice to this effect had been issued to the petitioner. Public notice in newspaper has also been published to this effect. The petitioner does not have any cause of action. The petition does not lye since title of the petitioner is in dispute and is pending adjudication before Hon'ble High Court. The land under consideration was let out for commercial RCT No. 68/09 6 of 26 7 purpose by Badri Bhagat Jhandewala Temple Society which had become defunct. The respondent got constructed the premises of its own and is in uninterrupted and continuous possession for more than 20 years. He has become owner of the premises by adverse possession. On merits he stated that premises had been let out for commercial purpose initially and the same had been used for commercial purpose though official formalities such as obtaining house tax and legal licence were obtained by respondent in the year 1971. Service of notice was admitted. The notice was replied in detail.
8. In support of their respective cases neither party lead any evidence. The petition was dismissed vide order dated 10.4.1997. In appeal the Ld. RCT remanded the matter vide order dated 12.09.2001 with liberty to the parties to lead evidence. This time the landlord examined one witness PW-1 Om Parkash Sharma, Secretary of the landlord who proved copy of registration certificate of the petitioner under Societies Registration Act as Ex. PW1/1, copy of rules and regulations as Ex. PW1/2, copy of judgment passed by Hon'ble High RCT No. 68/09 7 of 26 8 Court in suit filed by the petitioner against DDA regarding identity of the property and action of DDA to cancel the lease as Ex. PW1/5. Copy of notice has been proved as Ex. PW1/6, copy of another notice has been proved as Ex. PW1/7, reply to notice as Ex. PW1/8. He deposed that society was formed with the object of management of Jhandewala Devi Temple to facilitate the Dharamshala for visitors and to make Dharamshala and library for religious books etc. The petitioner need the premises for providing facilities to the devotees visiting the temple whose number exceed 1,00,000 a day during Navratras. The suit property is required for provision of shoes stand and drinking water for the devotees. The additional construction raised by the tenant is un-authorised.
9. In cross examination dated 24.05.2002 he stated that he could no say about rent receipt shown to him (Exhibited as Ex. PW1/R-1 objected to ) as he did not identify the signature of issuing authority on it. He filed relevant extract of the minutes of meeting which were exhibited as Ex. PW1/R2. In cross examination dated 27.5.2002 he admitted suggestion that Shanti Sarup had raised unauthorised construction which was RCT No. 68/09 8 of 26 9 made by him on first floor. He also admitted that two rooms accommodation let out to the tenant Shanti Swaroop by the petitioner society was not unauthorised construction. He denied that right from inception of tenancy, the tenant was using the premises for his business and was living elsewhere. However the tenant did not lead evidence this time also. The evidence of the tenant was closed on 19.5.2003. Application u/s 151 CPC for re-opening the evidence of the tenant was dismissed vide order dated 22.1.2004. Application for review to the same effect was dismissed vide order dated 6.7.2004.
10. After going through the material on record and hearing the arguments, the Ld. ARC noticed some suggestions given in cross examination of PW-1 to the effect that tenant has raised unauthorised construction on the first floor, two rooms accommodation let out to the tenant by the petitioner was not unauthorised construction. From this he inferred that what was let out was built up construction and not a vacant land. In reply to the notice the tenant admitted that two rooms were let out by the petitioner.
11. Order u/s 15(4) DRC Act passed on 12.8.1987 was RCT No. 68/09 9 of 26 10 modified to order u/s 15(1) DRC Act vide impugned order.
12. Regarding ground u/s 14(1) (c) DRC Act the Ld. ARC found that tenant has not led any evidence at all to show that the premises were let out for commercial purpose. Thus he accepted the case of the landlord that the premises were let out for residential purpose. He found himself in complete agreement with the plea of the landlord that premises belonging to Mandir, if used for commercial purpose would amount to nuisance as public which come to the Mandir for worship would find embarrassing. The same would be detrimental to the interest of the landlord. Hence eviction was ordered u/s 14(1) (c) DRC Act.
13. The petition u/s 14(1) (j) DRC Act was dismissed on the ground that the damages should be substantial. The landlord has not led cogent evidence and has not examined any expert witness to prove the extract of damage. Every change or addition or alteration would not invite eviction u/s 14(1) (j) DRC Act. In doing so he placed reliance on decision of our own Hon'ble High Court in Suraj Prakash Versus Baij Nath 103 (2003) DLT 645.
RCT No. 68/09 10 of 26 11
14. Being aggrieved both the parties have filed appeals. First I would be taking up the appeal of tenant. The tenant filed an application dated 21.12.2009 u/o 41 R 27 CPC stating that inadvertently, on account of lack of legal advice the petitioner could not file proper documents on record at appropriate time before Ld. Trial Court. He wanted to prove documents indicating that tenant constructed the property in question by his own funds and was using the same for commercial purpose from day one. The rent receipt Ex. PW1/R-1 was concealed by the landlord. The same showed that what was let out was land of 120 sq. yards. The said receipt falsify the stand of the landlord that letting was for residential purpose. There was no premises, no person could have ever resided on plot of land. He also wanted to place on record the permit for possession of denatured spirit from Government authority or Excise Department valid upto 31.03.1983. He also wanted to prove the registration with Sales Tax Department dated 14.08.1972 to show that M/s Anand Furniture Works was working there. The same would throw light on purpose of letting as commercial.
RCT No. 68/09 11 of 26 12
15. During arguments the tenant moved another application dated 08.09.2011 U/o 41 Rule 27 CPC. This application has substantially similar to the earlier application. The only difference is that this time the tenant pleaded that his application U/o 13 Rule 2 CPC placed on record was allowed by the Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 27.05.2002. Due to bonafide mistake, accidental omission documents could not be proved in evidence. The documents sought to be proved now form part of record of Government authorities which are otherwise admissible in evidence and there is no doubt about their authenticity and genuineness.
16. The counsel for the landlord opted not to file any reply to the above applications. However, he strongly opposed the applications, on the ground that additional evidence cannot be permitted to fill up the gap and remove the lacuna. The scope of additional evidence confined to a situation where evidence was not within the knowledge of the party at the time it was adducing its evidence in trial court. That is not the case of the tenant. Rather the second application for additional evidence shows that documents were within the knowledge and has RCT No. 68/09 12 of 26 13 been placed on record after seeking permission U/s 13 Rule 2 CPC. The counsel for the landlord also submitted that application of the respondent to reopen the evidence was dismissed by Ld. Trial Court as has been discussed above. Application for review of that order was also dismissed. Those orders have not been challenged by the tenant in his appeal.
17. At the very outset it may be mentioned that I am taking up these applications for additional evidence along with the main appeal as per law enunciated in Eastern Equipment and Sales Ltd. Vs. M/s ING. Yash Kumar Khanna AIR 2008 Supreme Court 2360 and Savitri Devi Vs. Gayatri Devi & others 166 (2010) DLT 595.
18. On merits it may be mentioned that in Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Vs. M/s. Cork Manufacturing Co. AIR 2008 Supreme Court 56 it was held that lack of advice is no ground for additional evidence. Hence the applications are dismissed.
19. The counsel for tenant pointed out that in para 5 of the eviction petition the landlord felt contended by mentioning that respondent was using the premises earlier for residential RCT No. 68/09 13 of 26 14 purpose. However it is now being used by him for commercial purpose without the consent of the petitioners. The landlord did not taken pains to mention till which date the respondent was using the premises for residential purpose and since when he started using the same for commercial purpose. The same is the fate of para 18 (a) (ii) of eviction petition. I am unable to persuade myself with the arguments. The landlord is not a privy to the change of user. He cannot know the exact date when the tenant started using the premises for commercial purpose. Non disclosure of the same has no material bearing on the outcome of the case.
20. Regarding rent receipt Ex. PW1/R1 it may be mentioned that counsel for the landlord pointed out and rightly so that the said receipt has not been exhibited legally. The reason being that witness did not admit the signature of the person issuing the same. Rather he stated that he could not say whether it bore the signature of that person. Exhibition was objected to as has been recorded in evidence. In these circumstances merely because exhibit has been put on document, it does not make the document proved. In taking this view I am fortified by RCT No. 68/09 14 of 26 15 decision in Sait Tarajee Khimchand and others Vs. Yelamarti Satyam and others AIR 1971 Supreme Court 1865 and M/s Unimode Overseas Limited Vs. M/s J & K Cargo Movers Pvt. Ltd. & others 2002 (5) Apex Decisions (Delhi) 806.
21. The counsel for the tenant submitted that even if rent receipt Ex. PR1/R-1 is taken as not properly proved, it does not make any difference. According to him the landlord himself filed photo copy of another counter foil for the period 1.9.1973 to 31.5.1974 which is placed at page 301 of the file of Ld. Trial Court. The same is ditto copy of Ex. PW1/R-1. Though the photo copy of counterfoil filed by the petitioner has not been exhibited by it, still it can be exhibited now as it has been relied upon by the petitioner himself. I feel that even if the rent receipt Ex. PW1/R-1 or counterfoil referred referred to above are considered, it would not make any difference for the reasons mentioned in the succeeding para.
22. Not only this the tenant is trying to mislead the court and misread the rent receipt Ex. PW1/R1. The area mentioned in the receipt is 12 sq. yards and not 120 sq. yards. It was not the case of the tenant in written statement that he has taken 120 RCT No. 68/09 15 of 26 16 sq. yards. The area mentioned in the receipt refers to land beneath the premises and not the nature of the premises. The rent receipt does not show that it pertained to vacant land. After all built up premises also have some land underneath it. If the landlord took precaution to mention the area of the land beneath the premises, it does not mean that receipt pertain to vacant land only.
23. Coming to the purpose of letting I may mention that in addition to the approach of the Ld. ARC that tenant has failed to lead any evidence to show the purpose of letting, I may mention that vacant land could not have been let out for commercial purposes. This follows from the plea raised by the tenant in application for additional evidence. He wants to make out that vacant land could not be let out for residential purpose. The same applies to reverse situation also. If vacant land could not be let out for residential purpose, it could not be let out for commercial purpose also.
24. The counsel for the appellant vehemently urged that the Ld. Trial Court has failed to maintain balance in the case of landlord viz a viz tenant. If the plea of the tenant that premises RCT No. 68/09 16 of 26 17 were let out for commercial purpose was not being believed, there is no reason why the plea of the petitioner that premises were let out for residential purpose was believed. The argument is misconceived. From the side of landlord PW-1 has deposed on oath that the premises were let out for residential purpose. As compared to it there is no oral evidence even, on behalf of the tenant to say that the premises were let out for commercial purpose. Thus the Ld. Trial Court was justified in accepting the case of the landlord.
25. The counsel for the tenant vigorously urged that the petition shows that there were two rooms in the tenanted premises but the site plan shows only one room. As such this discrepancy does not have any bearing because the extent of tenancy premises is not in dispute. But the counsel for the tenant wanted to emphasise that a big family of fifteen members could not live in one room accommodation. The arguments does not appeal. The reason being first of all there is no evidence to show that family of the tenant consisted of fifteen members. Secondly the court is not to act upon extract preposition as to how it could happen or as to how it RCT No. 68/09 17 of 26 18 could not happen so.
26. The counsel for the tenant want on to urge that house tax record must have contained the nature of premises as to whether the same were residential or commercial. The landlord withheld the same and so adverse inference should have been raised. Again I am unable to persuade myself with the arguments. House Tax record contains the user and not the purpose of letting. For the same reason documents filed by the respondent viz Sales Tax registration, Income Tax assessment order and licence from Excise Department were irrelevant. It may be added that they pertained to the period 1971 and onwards. The letting took place in 1967. Thus the subsequent user was hardly relevant for deciding the purpose of letting.
27. The counsel for the tenant emphatically submitted that landlord has failed to produce or prove any proof of ownership. I am at a loss to appreciate the arguments. Ownership is required only on the ground of bonafide requirement u/s 14(i)
(e) DRC Act. For other grounds it is sufficient that petitioner is landlord. In the instant case tenant has admitted that he took RCT No. 68/09 18 of 26 19 the premises on rent fromt the landlord and had been paying rent to the landlord. So he was estoped from disputing the rights of the landlord as per section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act.
28. The counsel for the tenant filed copy of judgment and decree dated 9.6.1960 passed by Sh. Daleep Singh, Sub- Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 169/1960 titled as Badri Bhagat Jhandewala Temple Society (Regd.) Versus Gokul Chand and others. Issue No. 1 in the said suit regarding ownership of the property was decided against the plaintiff. According to him the said document is a public document and is persee admissible. The same does not require any proof. To that extent he is correct. But again the question is that ownership is not required in the present eviction petition. Over and above that the counsel for the landlord rightly pointed out that in a subsequent case the Hon'ble High Court has held the landlord to be the owner. That judgment being by superior court and later in time over rides the judgment of sub-judge delivered earlier in time.
29. Faced with this situation the counsel for the tenant pointed RCT No. 68/09 19 of 26 20 out that PW-1 admitted in his cross examination dated 27.5.2002 that application u/o 9 R 13 CPC filed by JD/DDA was pending consideration before Hon'ble High Court. So the finality of the judgment delivered by Hon'ble High Court was sub-judice. Again the argument is misconceived. The counsel for the landlord rightly pointed out that application u/o 9 R 13 CPC was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 2.5.2003 copy of which is placed at pages 357 to 389 of the file of Ld. Trial Court.
30. To find out what was let out i.e. whether it was a vacant land or built up premises, it may be observed that the tenant has suggested in cross-examination of PW-1 that two rooms let out by the petitioner to the tenant were not unauthorized. This unmistakably shows that built up structure was let out and not vacant land. In para 1 and 2 of reply to notice which is Ex. PW1/8 the tenant has denied corresponding paras of the notice except that he had been and was tenant in respect of two big rooms along with latrine and bathroom (combined) @ Rs.12/- per month since about 1967 under Badri Bhagat Jhandewala Society. This mean that he had admitted that he RCT No. 68/09 20 of 26 21 was tenant in respect of two big rooms. At this juncture reference with advantage may be made to Basant Singh Vs. Janki Singh & Ors. AIR 1967 Supreme Court 341 where it was held that admission in pleadings can be used in evidence.
31. As regards the plea of tenant that he has become owner by adverse possession it is sufficient to note that same has to be mentioned for being rejected only. Once a tenant always a tenant. It is not the case of the tenant that he unauthorisedly entered into the premises or ever claimed himself to be the owner of the premises or disputed the title of the petitioner. Rather his case has been that he was a tenant under Badri Bhagat Jhandewala Society. So merely because according to the tenant Badri Bhagat Jhandewala Society had become defunct, does not make the tenant an owner by adverse possession.
32. Having held the premises being let out for residential purpose and undisputedly the same are being used for running a furniture shop, I have no doubt in holding that the same is misuse which is detrimental to the interest of the landlord. It is true that the landlord has mentioned in clause 18(a) (v) of the RCT No. 68/09 21 of 26 22 petition that the landlord society has been registered having object to maintain library of religious books, to maintain Jhandewala Devi temple or to construct or maintain Dharamshala, shops and other building. Word 'shop' refers to shop of Pooja goods, prashad and other articles which may be offered to Devi. Obviously it does not refer to shop of furniture. The furniture shop has nothing to do with the temple.
33. The appeal of the tenant fails and is dismissed.
34. Coming to the appeal of the landlord, its grievance is two fold. One, dismissal of the petition U/s 14 (1) (j) DRC Act. The counsel for the landlord emphatically submitted that tenant has suggested PW-1 in cross-examination that the construction based on the first floor was unauthroised. I put to the counsel for the landlord whether every damage is sufficient to invoke eviction. He tried to urge that un-authorised construction/ addition on a old structure constructed in 1956 is certainly dangerous to the building. Again I am unable to impress myself. No evidence has been led by the landlord to show that additional construction raised by the tenant has caused any crack in the structure on the ground floor or has posed a RCT No. 68/09 22 of 26 23 danger to the foundation of the building.
35. Anyhow the arguments of the counsel for the landlord that Ld. Trial Court has not adverted to ground U/s 22 DRC Act is quite weighty. It appears that the same has skipped from the mind of the Ld. Trial Court altogether. That ground has neither been accepted nor rejected by the Ld. Trial Court. Undisputedly the landlord is a society. Explanation to Section 22 DRC Act defines that public institution includes educational institution, library, hospital and charitable dispensary. It is note- worthy that the definition is inclusive and not exclusive meaning thereby that it may include other alike institution like religious institution. What has been excluded is institution set up by private trust. That is all. The ingredients of Section 22 are that premises are required for furtherance of activities. The phrase "furtherance of its activities" came up for consideration before our own Hon'ble High Court in Chunni Lal Vs. University of Delhi 1970 RCR 742 and it was held that word 'activities' is wider than 'objects'. Where University was established for the advancement and dissemination of knowledge and for the appointment of staff, the provision of residential RCT No. 68/09 23 of 26 24 accommodation to the staff may not itself be the object for which the university was established but it is a necessary activity which the university has to undertake, if the staff is to perform its duty efficiently. It is, therefore an activity which the university can legally undertake. If residential accommodation for staff is included in furtherance of activities, construction of shop for keeping shoes of devotees and water shop is certainly for the furtherance of activities of the temple. A devotee who come in the peak hours of summer who is not supposed to wear the shoes while entering the tem ple necessarily require a space to put off his shoes near the temple or in the compound of temple. Similarly when lacs of devotees visit in a day and they are supposed to stand in queue for couple of hours, they require drinking water atleast. This is what has been categorically deposed by PW-1 in the end of his examination in chief that suit for premises are required for provision of shoes stand and for provision of drinking water for devotees.
36. The counsel for the tenant did not miss to argue that landlord has not filed the site plan of the whole property to RCT No. 68/09 24 of 26 25 show the size of library and dharamshala. The landlord did not adduce evidence to show that how many books are there in the library. I have given my earnest consideration to the arguments and feel that the same are aimed at confusing the court. The landlord does not want the premises to expand the library or dharamshala. So there was no need to file the site plan of those portions. The landlord is seeking eviction for shoes stand and drinking water.
37. Last but not the least ground taking by counsel for the tenant is that bare reading of statement of PW-1 particularly cross examination shows that almost all the questions put by the tenant were dis-allowed and all objections raised by landlord were sustained. This show that the evidence was recorded in biased manner and the tenant was not given full opportunity to put his case. I feel that it is too late in the day to argue this stand. The tenant should have challenged the same at that very time if he was really aggrieved. Now after loosing the game, it is not open to him to say that his questions were allowed unnecessarily. To accept the arguments would amount to permitting a party to challenge the rules of the RCT No. 68/09 25 of 26 26 game, after the game is over. Moreover I have carefully considered the questions and the observations of the court while allowing the same and find that most of the questions were in the nature of roving probe. The same were not relevant to the questions involved in the case and were rightly dis-allowed.
38. In view of the above discussions, the appeal of the landlord is accepted in part. Eviction is ordered U/s 22 DRC Act.
39. To sum up the tenant is liable to be evicted U/s 14 (1) (c) and 22 DRC Act. Benefit u/s 14(2) DRC Act would be decided by Ld. ARC in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. Trial Court record be sent back along with copy of this order.
40. Copy of this order be placed on file of appeal RCT No. 39A/2011.
Announced in open court on this 19thday of September, 2011. (O.P. GUPTA) DJ&ASJ-In-Charge(West)/ARCT Delhi RCT No. 68/09 26 of 26