GIRISH CHAND GUPTA Vs. D D AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is second appeal filed against the judgement passed by the Rent Control Tribunal on 26.3.91, v/hereby' he confirmed the order of the Addl. Rent Controller dated 1.2.90 and dismissed the appeal of the tenant. In brief, the facts of the case are that Shri D.D. Aggarwal, hereinafter referred to as the respondent filed a petition for eviction under Section 14(l)(h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act alleging that he had let out the premises T-24, Green Park Extn., New Delhi to Girish Chand, appellant for residential purpose only on a monthly rent of Rs. 550.00 and that the appellant tenant had been alloted flat No-155, first floor Ashok Vihar Phase IV incategory II SFS, by D.D.A. Both the Courts below have relied upon the oral as well as documentary evidence and concurrently held that the appellant was the tenant and the purpose of letting was residential and that the appellant-tenant has acquired possession of flat No. 155 first floor, Ashok Vihar Phase IV which has been allotted by the DDA. The contentions raised by the appellant tenant are that the purpose of letting was residential-cum commercial and that besides him, his wife Usha Gupta was also tenant and acquisition of flat No. 155 was benami in his name, though his minor daughter is the owner. Rate of rent has not been disputed but it is alleged that Rs. 350.00 which he used to pay by cheque was his share and Rs. 200.00 - which used to be paid in cash was the share of rent which was paid by his wife Usha Gupta.

(2.) Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, this second appeal, has been filed. It is settled law as has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumarv. Ajit Singh, 1969 0 RCR 181, that in the second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the High Court is not competent to reassess the facts adduced before the Rent Control Tribunal. On the question of fact the High Court is bound by the order of the Tribunal. In this case, it has to be seen whether any substantial question of law arises or is it the reasssessment of facts which have been concurrently decided by both the Courts below.

(3.) Regarding the purpose of letting it is not disputed that the tenancy was created for the first time in 1973. No documentary evidence has been produced on behalf of the appellant tenant that at the time of creation of initial tenancy it was also intended that the premises would be used for commercial purpose as well. From 1973 to 1979 there is no evidence worth the name that the permises were used for commercial purpose. It was in 1979 that some documents like sale tax number has been obtained by the wife of the appellant tenant for running some business or that some bank account has been opened. The documents were not produced. Even if these documents are there it cannot be said that the purpose of letting was commercial which was created in 1973. No question of law is involved. I do not find any ground to interfere in the finding of both the Courts below in this regard.