KAMLA MARWAH Vs. KAPUR FABRICS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, who is owner/landlady of the demised premises, comprising of drawing-cum-dining room, two bed rooms with attached toilets, kitchen, garage on the ground floor, bed room with attached toilet and servant room above garage on the first floor, built on plot No. D-29, Defence Colony, New Delhi, had sought eviction of the respondent No. I/tenant by invoking the provisions of Clauses (e), (d), (h) and (k) of the proviso the Section 14 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short the Act). As per averments in the eviction petition, the tenancy premises formed part of a residential house, and had been let to the respondent for residential purposes, but no one was residing in the premises and further that the tenant had acquired vacant possession of a quarter for residence, and had converted the letting purpose of residsntial into commerical, by using the demised premises as a show-room of furnishing fabrics .and boutique, without prior and written consent of the landlady, and that this user was otherwise detrimental to the interest of the landlady as she had received notices from D.D.A. threatening action under Section 29 of the Delhi Development Act, and the , Land and Development Office also threatened to levy penalty for converting, the user, .and the Municipal Corporation had threatened to levy additional house tax. Besides, it was alleged that the premises were let to the tenant for residence of one Ashok Kapur, but neither the tenant nor any member of his family was residing, and the tenant had otherwise also acquired vacant possession of another premises. On the basis of these allegations, the appellant sought eviction on the grounds covered by Clauses (e), (d), and (h) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Act. She further alleged that notwithstanding previous notice, the tenant had dealt with the premises in a manner contrary to the conditions imposed on the landlady by the Government of India, through Land and Development Office, (L&DO for short), who are the lessor, in respect of leasehold rights of the land, on which the house was built, and further that the user was incontravention of the provisions of the Delhi Development Act, thus rendering the tenant liable to eviction under Clause (k) of proviso to Section 14 (i) of the Act

(2.) The stand taken by the respondent was of denial of the allegations that the premises were let out for residential purposes. It was asserted on the other hand that the letting was for commercial purposes, and the demised premises were being used from the inception of the tenancy as such, and in face of this the landlady could not seek eviction by invoking Clauses (e), (d) and (h), which postulate letting for residential purpose.

(3.) In so far as the ground covered by Clause (k) was concerned, the plea was that of complete denial of receipt of any notice from the superior lessor of the landlady for stopping the misuser or conversion of the user; arid consequently this ground also being not available.