AMRIT LAL SETHI Vs. GURBUX SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the tenant under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, and is directed against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 29th September, 1966, by which he partly allowed the appeal of the landlord and reversing the order of the Controller finally passed an order of eviction of the tenant from a portion of the tenanted premises, which he found were residential, while maintained the refusal of eviction in respect of the remaining portion of the tenanted premises.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the appellant before me became a tenant in respect of 8, Babar Lane, New Delhi, on or about 19th April, 1942, and he executed rent notes Exhibits A-7 to A-21 in respect of the premises, but the rent notes are conspicuous by the absence of the letting purpose from them. The landlord instituted a petition for eviction of the tenant under clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Rent Act on the ground that he bonafide required the premises for his personal occuring. The said petition was contested by the tenant on various ground inter alia, the principal contention being that the premises had at least since 1949 been used for commercial purpose and that they had been let for being used for office-cum-residence purposes and so it was not open to the landlord to obtain eviction in respect of them under clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 14. On a consideration of the evidence on record the controller found that the presimes were not residential but residential-cum-commercial and following the authority of the Supreme Court reported as Gopal Dass Verma v. S. K. Bhardwaj and another, 1963 AIR(SC) 337, he rejected the claim of the landlord. On appeal the landlord did not other findings of the Controller but he urged that in the premises which had been shown on plan Exhibit A-22 only a portion of the premises was being used for commercial purposes and the rest was being used for residential purposes, and that he was entitled to eviction in respect of atleast the residential portion. The learned Tribunal relied upon the authorities reported as Moti Lal and another v. Nanak Chand and others,1964 PunLR 179 and Jaswant Singh v. Daya Singh,1966 2 DLT 183 to split up the tenancy and allowed a decree for eviction in respect of what he found to be the residential portion and rejected rest of the claim.

(3.) The learned counsel for the tenant has assailed the order of the Tribunal before me.