RAM KISHAN Vs. KANWAR INDERJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The property in question is a portion of Z-39, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi (hereinafter "suit property"?), wherein admittedly, the Appellant-tenant (hereinafter "tenant"?) is running a dry-cleaning shop by the name of 'Uttam Dry Cleaners'. The suit property is a leasehold property by the L&DO in favour of the Respondent-landlord (hereinafter "landlord"?). The said lease deed was executed on 10/6/1959, by the President of India, for a period of 99 years commencing from 30/9/1955. The relevant clauses in the lease deed read as under:

(2.) A perusal of the above two clauses makes it clear that the suit property was to be used for residential purposes. The ground floor of the suit property was taken on rent by the tenant, who started a shop by the name of Uttam Dry Cleaners. A legal notice was issued by the landlord under Sec. 14(1)(k) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter "DRC Act"?) on 20/9/1976, to stop misuser, on the ground that objection was raised by the L&DO and re-entry was threatened. In fact, the suit property had stood briefly re-entered because of misuse, though possession was restored to the landlord thereafter. In reply dtd. 12/10/1976 to this notice, the tenant claimed that the suit premises has been used as a dry-cleaning shop since inception and the landlord has been regularly receiving rent. Reliance was also placed on a Zonal Development Plan stated to be in force from 18/1/1972, as per which it was claimed that the premises had been declared as a commercial premises. The tenant curiously claimed that using the premises for residence would be violative of the Zonal Development Plan. In view of this stand taken by the tenant, the landlord on 2/11/1978, filed a petition before the ld. ARC, under Sec. 14(1)(k) of the DRC Act, seeking eviction of the tenant. It is this petition under Sec. 14(1)(k) of the DRC Act, which is the subject matter of the present second appeal.

(3.) In the eviction petition, the Assistant L&DO, Mr. D.R. Kapoor, who appeared as AW7 clearly stated as under:-