HIRALAL KAPUR Vs. PRABHU CHOUDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is an advocate. He is the owner of premises No. H-2/6 Model Town, Delhi. He let out a part of this premises comprising a set of rooms above the garage (which may be briefly referred to as 'servants' quarters') and a hall on the ground floor of the building to the respondent. The letting was oral and on a monthly rent of Rs. 600/- (exclusive of electricity and water charges) from July 1976.

(2.) In January 1980, the landlord filed an eviction petition under proviso (e) to S. 14(l) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. He claimed of that he needed the premises bona fide for the personal residential requirements of himself and the members of his family. His case was that he was having his office at Chandni Chowk on a first floor but, as he had been advised by the doctor not to climb upstairs, he desired to move the office and library to the ground floor hall of the premises in question. He also claimed that the servants' quarters were required for the use of his servants and their families.

(3.) The petition was resisted by the respondent on a number of grounds. We are, however, concerned here only with two of the grounds put forward by the tenant. His first submission was that though the premises had initially been taken only for the residential use of himself, subsequently two separate tenancies had been created in respect of premises in dispute. He claimed that he was the tenant only of the servants' quarters and that the hall on the ground floor had been let out to Bal Kunj (a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860) of which he was the secretary. It was pointed out that from November 1986 onwards, the petitioner was being' paid two sums, a sum of Rs. 250/- by the respondent and another sum of Rs. 350/- per month by the respondent on behalf of Bal Kunj. It was, therefore, contended that the petition as filed was not maintainable. The second plea taken by the respondent was that the intended use of the ground floor hall as the office of the petitioner lawyer constituted a non-residential use and was, therefore, outside the purview of proviso (e) to S1. 14(1).