VIDYA PRAKASH CHOPRA Vs. KHUSHIRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the Addl. Rent Controller, Delhi dated 16th April, 1989 whereby the eviction petition filed by the respondent under Section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act was allowed and an eviction order was passed against the petitioner. The brief facts are as follows :

(2.) Premises bearing No. 17-A/20 W.E.A. Karol Bagh, New Delhi were originally owned by M/s Rehman Ilahi, Rehmat Ilahi and were let out to the brother of the petitioner Shri S.N.Chopra. The said premises were purchased by the respondent by a sale deed dated 13th December, 1977. According to the petitioner, the premises were let out by the original landlord for residential-cumcommercial purposes in the year 1963 for the family business of the petitioner's family in the name of Hindustan Publishing House. Shri S.P. Chopra separated from the family in the year 1963 and the premises were let out to the petitioner by the original landlord again for residential-cum-commercial purpose. The petitioner started the business from the said premises in the name of Associate Ad-aqueous Amonia in the year 1967. Thereafter he started another business as an Export Consultant for products relating to chemical industries in the name of Business Booster Group. The respondent filed the eviction petition against the petitioner on the ground that the premises were required by him bona fide for his use and use of his family members which consisted of himself, his wife his three married sons, their wives, three grand children, two grown up unmarried sons and a daughter Miss Usha Rani aged 17 years. Apart from this the respondent also stated in the petition that his brother Shri Prabhu Dayal also occasionally comes to stay with him. The respondent stated that the present accommodation in his possession which consisted of four rooms, two kitchens, two latrines on the first floor and a barsati on the second floor wag not sufficient for him and his family members dependent on him. The petitioner herein filed an application for leave to defend under Section 25-B (4) of the Delhi Rent Control Act which was allowed by order dated 28th March 1983. There- after he also moved an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the written statement which was also allowed by order dated 24th March 1987. The Addl. Rent Controller, Delhi came to the conclusion that the premises were let out for residential purpose and were not let out for a composite purpose of business-cum-residence, and the premises in occupation of the petitioner were required by the respondent for his bona fide personal use and the use of his family members dependent on him.

(3.) No one appeared for the petitioner at the hearing of the revision petition. With the help of the counsel for the respondent I have gone through the record of the case including the grounds of revision and the evidence led by the parties. One of the main grounds on which the petitioner has challenged the impugned order is that the Addl. Rent Controller erred in relying on Rent Note dated 1.6.63 which was sought to be proved by A.W.I i.e., one of the attesting witnesses of the said Rent Note, Mr. Partap Kishan Jaitley, Advocate. This Rent Note was executed by Shri V.P. Chopra, i.e., the petitioner herein in favour of the previous owner. A.W. 1 in his evidence has stated that the petitioner had signed the Rent Note in his presence after reading its contents. The main contention of the petitioner is that since this Rent Note was not registered, which was a requirement under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act it was not admissible in evidence and therefore the Rent Controller erred in relying on this Rent Note while coming to the conclusion that the premises were let out for residential purpose alone. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that since the Rent Note is a unilateral document signed by the petitioner Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 17 of the Registration Act are not applicable. He further submitted that even if the said Rent Note was required to be registered even then the contents of the Rent Note could be looked into. He relied on the judgments of this Court in Pravin S.Shah v. Govind K. Sharma: reported as 1974 Raj. L.R. 128, M/s Rai & Sons (Pvt.) Lid. & Ors. v. M/s Phelps and Co. Pvt. Ltd., reported as 1989 (1) RCR 590=38 (1989^ w Imtiaz Ali v. Nasim Ahmed: reported as AIR 1987 Delhi 36==31 (1987) DLT 150 in support of his contention.