PUSHPA TALWAR Vs. A N KAPOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-landlady, in this second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') challenges the judgment and order of the Rent Control Tribunal, dated 18th November, 1978 confirming the order, dated 29th September, 1976 of the Additional Controller, dismissing her application for eviction of the respondent tenant on the ground of personal bona fide requirement mentioned in Section 14(1)(e)oftheAct. The question for decision is : Whether the premises in question were let for residential purposes?

(2.) To determine the purpose of letting, it is necessary to narrate certain facts. Shri Ram Narain Virmani, father of the appellant, had constructed flats at 24, Mall Road, Delhi in 1960. He let out two flats in the said building on 1st October, 1961 to the respondent. In her letter dated 7th October, 1961, the respondent wrote, "We agree to use house for residential purposes of myself and foreign students". On 18th August, 1962 she surrendered one flat and retained flat No. 2 only under the tenancy. In her letter dated 18th August, 1962 to appellant's father, she stated," I shall be keeping foreign students as guests in my house". On 3rd February, 1964 Shri Virmani filed an application for her eviction on the grounds mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Act. The respondent raised the plea of fixation of standard rent. Mr. Virmani however on 27th June, 1964 sold the premises in suit i.e. flat No. 2 at 24 Mall Road, Delhi to the appellant in consideration of Rs. 35,000.00 . The appellant was substituted in place of Mr. Virmani. On 10th March, 1967 the eviction application was dismissed as per order (Ex. R. 2) and by another order dated 27th May, 1968 (Ex. R. 3) the Controller after determining, the total cost of the construction and value of land at Rs. 41,200.00 fixed the standard rent at Rs. 283.75 per month. The Additional Controller while fixing the said sum as standard rent observed, "This would be quite reasonable standard rent of the premises in question) keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the present case, as well ; as the premises in question had been let out to the respondent for running some sort of hostel for keeping foreign students".

(3.) On 8th May, 1973 the appellant sent a notice (Ex. A. 3) alleging para 3(b)," that the premises let to you for residential purposes are being used by you for commercial purposes in so far as they were let to you for your residence and for the residence of foreign students but you are using the . premises for purposes other than that for which they were let, by letting out various portions to several students on commercial lines and are charging hostel fees and are thus making it more as a commercial concern". The respondent in her reply dated 23rd May, 1973 (Ex. R. 1) stated, "Clause(b) is not admitted. The premises are used for my residence and also for keeping foreign students. The premises are used for the purpose for which they were let. No portion of premises is let to any person by me". On 12th July, 1973 the appellant filed the eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, out of which this second appeal has arisen. She alleged that the premises were let for residential purposes and the same were required bona fide by her who was the owner/perpetual lessee for occupation as residence for herself and for members of her family, that she had no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation, that she was living in a rented house paying rent at Rs. 850.00 per month for the accommodation lesser than the premises in dispute. The respondent in her Written statement dated 15th August, 1973 denied the ground of eviction. She pleaded that the premises were not let for residence only, that the premises were let for the purpose of her residence and for boarding and lodging of foreign students and that the premises had been used for residence and for keeping foreign students as paying guests The alleged requirement of the petitioner was also denied. The respondent further pleaded that the appellant was estopped from alleging that the premises were residential or were let for residential purposes. She also pleaded that the previous order fixing the standard rent operated as res judicala. In replication the appellant submitted that the premises were let only for residential purposes and not for commercial purposes and that the previous order fixing the standard rent had been misinterpreted by the respondent, that the premises were never let out for running a hostel, that letting of the premises for residence.of the respondent and foreign students did not mean that the premises were let for commercial purposes. The Additional Controller and the Tribunal held that the lettting purpose was not residence but it was residential-cum-commercial and therefore dismissed the eviction application.