Hem Chand and ors. Vs. Hari Kishan Rohtagi and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....to the classification of land on the basis of the evidence adduced before it by individual land owners; by way of example, having regard to the fact that claimants had failed to prove that the land had any irrigation facility, the reference judge classified the lands as jirayat lands. held that, the finding of fact arrived at by the reference judge on the basis of the materials brought on record could not be interfered with by the high court on the surmises and conjectures. if the state was aggrieved thereby, it was bound to show that the findings arrived at by the reference court was not sustainable having regard to the materials brought on record. the opinion of the high court that saplings varying from 1 to 3 years of age were available for plantation from the government as well as private horticulture nurseries was based on surmises and conjectures, there being no such contention and no material for formation of such an opinion was brought on record. in certain cases, the conduct of a person claiming higher amount of compensation by taking recourse to certain acts to show development of the lands for obtaining better compensation might be a subject-matter of the..........delhi seeking eviction of respondent nos. 1 to 5 on three grounds; however, the only ground which survives is provided under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 14 of the delhi rent control act, 1958 (for short 'the act'). the allegation of the appellants was that respondent no.5 was inducted as sub-tenant without this written consent of the appellants and therefore respondent nos.1 to 4 who are the tenants should be evicted from the said premises. the respondents took the plea that the consent was obtained to sublet the premises.3. the learned rent controller, the rent tribunal and the high court found that subletting in favour of the 5th respondent was without the consent of the appellants and ordered his eviction. however, the grievance of the appellants is that the other six sub-tenants are occupying various portions of the tenanted premises and therefore the courts ought to have ordered eviction of respondent nos.1 to 4 instead of confining the order of eviction to respondent no.5, one sub-tenant only.it appears from the pleadings that in the eviction petition the landlord stated that out of 8 sub-tenants, six sub-tenants were inducted into possession of different.....

Judgment:

ORDER

1. This dissatisfied landlord is in appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi in Second Appeal Nos. 112-112/1979 112-112/1979 dated February 23, 1996.

2. The appellants filed Suit No. E-384/70 in the Court of Shri M.A. Khan, VI Additional Rent Controller, Delhi seeking eviction of respondent nos. 1 to 5 on three grounds; however, the only ground which survives is provided under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act'). The allegation of the appellants was that respondent no.5 was inducted as sub-tenant without this written consent of the appellants and therefore respondent nos.1 to 4 who are the tenants should be evicted from the said premises. The respondents took the plea that the consent was obtained to sublet the premises.

3. The learned Rent Controller, the Rent Tribunal and the High Court found that subletting in favour of the 5th respondent was without the consent of the appellants and ordered his eviction. However, the grievance of the appellants is that the other six sub-tenants are occupying various portions of the tenanted premises and therefore the courts ought to have ordered eviction of respondent nos.1 to 4 instead of confining the order of eviction to respondent no.5, one sub-tenant only.It appears from the pleadings that in the eviction petition the landlord stated that out of 8 sub-tenants, six sub-tenants were inducted into possession of different portions with his consent. If that be so, neither the tenants nor the sub-tenant could have been ordered to be evicted merely because one of the sub-tenants was inducted into possession of a portion of tenanted premises Without the consent of the landlord. So far as respondent nos.1 to 4 as well as the other sub-tenants are concerned there can be no legitimate complaint of sub-letting because even according to the petition of the appellants they were inducted as the sub-tenants with his consent. This is not a fit case to order eviction of respondents 1 to 4 under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act.We therefore find no illegality in the order of the High Court warranting our interference. The appeals are therefore dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case, without costs.