HARSH TALWAR Vs. RANI GADHOKE DECD THROUGH LRS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order impugned before this Court is the judgment of the Additional Rent Control Tribunal (ARCT) dated 20.10.2011 which in an appeal under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) had endorsed the finding of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dated 19.04.2008 wherein the eviction petition filed by the landlord namely Rani Gadhoke (through legal representatives) and others seeking eviction of the tenant Harsh Talwar from the second floor of property No. 44, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar, ITI, New Delhi on the grounds contained in Section 14 (1) (c), (d) & (h) of the DRCA had been decreed.

(2.) Record discloses that the eviction petition had been filed by the landlord under the aforenoted provisions of law as also the ground (k) under Section 14 (1) of the DRCA but the said provision is not relevant for the controversy in dispute before this Court. Eviction petition discloses that the premises had been let out to the respondent for a residential purpose; neither the respondent and nor his family is residing in the premises since the last two years; they have shifted their residence to property No. 90, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi; the tenant has also acquired another premises; premises are being misused as the premises had been let out for a residential purpose but are being used for a commercial purpose. The tenant had been asked to stop the misuse by a legal notice dated 24.07.1980 but inspite of service of the said notice, the respondent had not stopped the misuse. He is using it in a manner contrary to the purpose for which it has been let out and against the bye-laws of the MCD. A second notice dated 31.12.1998 was also served upon the tenant. In the eviction petition, it has further been contended that the barsati floor does not have any separate electricity meter; it is connected with the ground floor.

(3.) Written statement was filed. It was denied that the premises were being put to misuse; contention of the tenant was that the premises had been let out for commercial purpose only and this was well within the knowledge of the tenant and there has been a continuous user of the premises in the same manner i.e. a commercial purpose; case for misuse is not made out. Admittedly from the ground floor a proprietorship firm under the name and style of M/s Yak International + CIE is being run; contention of the tenant being that the landlord had let out these premises i.e. second floor later in time from the ground floor; the ground floor tenancy had been created in favour of the tenant on 01.01.1978; it was a tenancy created under Section 21 of the DRCA; the present tenancy on the second floor had been created in April, 1978 for a distinct purpose which was for a commercial use; grounds under Section 14 (1)(c),(d) & (h) are not made out. Further contention of the tenant was that admittedly the landlord has service a legal notice for misuse upon the tenant as way back on 24.07.1980 and the eviction petition having been filed on 08.04.1998 i.e. after a lapse of almost 19 years shows that the landlord had impliedly consented to the user of the said premises for a commercial purpose; the landlord has now no right to agitate this issue as he has slumbered over this right, if any, since the last 19 years; the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.