LAWS(DLH)-1980-3-68

SHRIMATI JANKI DEVI Vs. RAGHUBAR DAYAL

Decided On March 07, 1980
JANKI DEVI Appellant
V/S
RAGHUBAR DAYAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal filed by the landlord against the judgment of the Rent Control Tribunal who allowed the respondent's appeal and dismissed the landlady's application for eviction of the respondent.

(2.) The premises in dispute, namely, 1051 Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi, previously belonged to M/s. Dina Nath Nanak Chand. On 1st January, 1953 the premises consisting of two rooms, one store, one kitchen, one W.C. and one bath room and courtyard were let out to the respondent. These premises were purchased by the landlady in December, 1956. In the sale-deed the premises in question were described as a residential flat.

(3.) On 1st September 1958, the appellant filed a suit under the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1952 for the eviction of the respondent. The ground on which the said suit was filed was that the premises in question were let out for residence. It was alleged that the premises were being used for purposes other than for what they were let out without the consent of the appellant. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent it was contended that the premises were let out for residence-cum-office purposes. It was further stated that "the defendant has been using the premises mainly for his residence and incidentally for his business 'Gupta Sanitary Stores' from the very beginning............". It was further stated that "the premises are still used by the defendant for his residence and business as stated above". It appears that the said suit was compromised and was dismissed on 6th February, 1959. The present litigation started when the appellant filed a petition on 29th January, 1970 for eviction under Section 4(1)(e) and (h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, after a notice dated 26th August, 1968 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy had been issued by her. The respondent in his written statement took the plea that the premises had been let out for residence-cum-commercial purposes and as such eviction could not be ordered under Section 14(1)(e)(h).