Anant Kumari vs Prem Pal Chatrath and Another

G.C. Jain, J.—This second appeal is directed against the judgment of the Rent Control Tribunal dated August 23, 1974.

The dispute is in respect of first floor of property No. 543, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi. On February 26, 1969 the applicant Smt. Anant Kumari brought a petition for eviction of the respondents Prem Pal Chatrath and Mahesh Chatrath from the said premises on the allegation that the premises had been let out by her to Prem Pal Chatrath on a monthly rent of Rs. 65/- per month in 1965. He had sub-let, assigned or otherwise parted with possession of the premises in dispute to Mahesh Chatrath. It was also and was not living in the premises for the last more than 10 months.

The petition was resisted by the respondents. It was alleged that both of them were brothers and co=tenants in the premises. In the alternative it was pleaded that Mahesh Chatrath-respondent No. 2, was living in he premises as member of family the of Prem Pal Chatrath and was dependant on him for residence.

Both the courts below came to the conclusion that the premises had been let out only to Prem Pal Chatrath and not to Mahesh Chatrath. They further held that there was no sub-letting, assignment or otherwise parting with the possession and that Mahesh Chatrath was living in the premises in dispute as a member of the family of the tenant since long and the landlady was, Therefore, not entitled to claim eviction under either of the two grounds. Feeling aggrieved, the landlady had filed this second appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant, before Tribunal as well as before me, assailed only the finding regarding residence of Mahesh Chatrath as a family member of the tenant. It was contended that he was a brother, his parents were alive and he, Therefore, cold not e included in the expression `family'' used in Clause (d) to the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the Act). In support of this contention he relied on the definition of `tenant'' given in Clause 2(2) of the Act. According to Clause (2)(1)(iii) "in the event of the death of the person continuing in possession after the termination of his tenancy, subject to the order of succession and conditions specified, respectively in Explanation I and Explanation II to this clause, such of the aforesaid persons : (a) Spouse, (b)son or daughter, or where there are both son and daughter, both of them, (c) parents, (d) daughter-in-law, being the widow of his pre-deceased son" would fall within the definition of the `tenant''. It was pointed out that the brother or sister was not included in this category and Therefore brother could not e considered as member of the family.

I find no substance in this argument. The purpose of amending the definition of the tenant was to confer certain benefits of the Act on certain (sic) of the deceased tenant. This definition, in my view, is in no way concerned with the definition of the word `family appearing in Clause (d) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act'' In any case in Baldev Sahal Bangia v. R.C. Bhasin. 1982(2) R C J 98, it has been held by the Supreme Court that "the word `family'' has been defined in various legal dictionaries and several authorities of various court and no court has ever held that mother or a brother or a sister who is living with the older member of the family would not constitute a family of the said member." In view of this decision, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that Mahesh Chatrath could not e member of the family of Prem Pal Chatrath, (sic) be accepted.

Both the courts below have held that Mahesh Chatrath was living with his brother, the tenant, since long prior to the filing of the eviction petition. This was necessarily a finding of fact and cannot e assailed in the second appeal unless the finding was arbitrary, unreasonable or perverse. The only grievance of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the courts below were not justified in believing the oral evidence when the best evidence namely ration card, school certificate, etc. were not produced.

A finding can be based on oral evidence only inspire of the fact that some documentary evidence could be produced. In the present case, evidence of the landlady consisted of only her self-serving statement. In this situation the courts below were justified I accepting the evidence of the respondents.

Learned counsel for the appellant also pointed out certain contradictions RW 2 J. R. Puri had stated that for some time Mahesh Chatrath after his marriage had taken on rent one room in Block E, New Rajinder Nagar. Prem Pal Chatrath, on the other hand, stated that the said room had been taken from some relation in Moti Nagar. This contradiction is of no consequence. From the evidence, it is apparent that Mahesh Chatrath after his marriage took one room on rent only for sleeping purposes. He was missing with his brother.

In my view, the appellant had failed to prove that neither the tenant nor any member of his family had been residing in the premises for a period of six months immediately before the date of filing of the petition. The finding of the Tribunal is correct and calls for no interference. I, Therefore, dismiss the appeal, with costs. Counsel''s Fee Rs. 500/-.