P.N. KHANNA Vs. T.P. BALAKANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against an order of the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi whereby the landlord's petition seeking eviction was accepted after setting aside the order of the Controller by which the landlord's petition seeking eviction had been dismissed.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the respondent-landlord had sought eviction of the appellant-tenant on the ground of the landlord's bonafide requirement of the premises for his own residence. The appellant is the tenant of the respondent in the ground-floor of these premises and the accommodation available with him is three rooms, one store, one bath room, one W., C. One kitchen, varandah, courtyard and garage: Two mianies are also In the tenancy of the appellant which had been let to him later.The first floor of these premises has similar accommodation to the accommodation on the ground floor. The respondent's case was that he was living in the Radhaswami Colony In Dera Baba Jaimal Singh, District Amritsar but now wants to shift to Delhi and live in his own house and as he is an old man and has no other suitable residential accommodation available to him he wants for himself the premises in the occupation of the appellant. It was alleged that the premises were purely residential and had been so let to the appellant tenant. As the tenant refused to vacate the premises the respondents commenced eviction proceedings under the provisions of section 14(1) proviso (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The case of the appellant tenant was that the premises let to him were let for residential cum-commercial purposes and inasmuch as the lame were not purely residential the provisions of proviso (e) of section 14(1) of the Rent Control Act were not attracted and that in any case the respondent did not require the premises bonafide for his own need and had filed the eviction petition against him mala fide, It was also alleged that the first floor of this house had been falling vacant from time to time but had been let by the respondent on increased rent belying the alleged bonafide need of the respondent.

(3.) The Controller by his order dated 1.11.1968 dismissed the eviction petition. One of the grounds on which the negatived the claim for bonafide personal need raised by the respondent was that the first floor had fallen vacant from time to time which the landlord could have easily kept if he needed a residence in Delhi. He also held that Inasmuch as the respondent had not actually shifted to Delhi and his family comprises of only himself and his wife the eviction petition was motivated by expectation to get increased rent. About the letting purpose the Controller had held that Inasmuch as the appellant was carrying on business under the name and style of Engineers Publishers' in the absence of any written contract detailing the letting purpose it must be held that the premises were let for residential-cum-business purposes and so the premises not being purely residential premises the eviction petition as filed was not maintainable. The Rent Control Tribunal reversed both the findings. Aggrieved the tenant has filed the present appeal.