SHRIMATI HARBANS KAUR Vs. DR. J.C. CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two appeals against the judgment dated August 23, 1968, of the Rent Control Tribunal by which he disposed of two appeals. One of the appeals before him was by the landlord and the other by the tenant.

(2.) The landlord in this case is the appellant and the respondent is the tenant. The premises in dispute are the ground floor of house No. A-270 Defence Colony New Delhi which have been in the occupation of the respondent for a long time and in respect whereof parties have entered into agreements of lease from time to time. The last agreement for lease is dated February 16, 1964 (Exhibit A.W.5/7). The house is constructed on lease-hold land under a 99 years lease granted by the President of India to the processor-in-interest of the appellant, a copy of which is Exhibit A.W.5/6.

(3.) After previous notice, the appellant filed an application for eviction of the respondent in March, 1965. The grounds were mis-user, personal bonafide requirement, damage to premises and using the premise contrary to the terms of the aforesaid 99 years lease which grounds are covered by clauses (c), (e), (j) and (k) respectively of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of the Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as "the Act". The Additional Rent Controller held against the appellant with regard to the allegations with reference to clauses (e), (j) and (k) of the aforesaid proviso but granted a decree of eviction under clause (e) in respect of a portion of the tenancy premises which were actually being used by the respondent for residential purposes. It may here be stated that admittedly the respondent, a dentist, was using the premises for his residence, personal, office and clinic. The appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal against the findings of the Additional Rent Controller with regard to mis-user, damage to the property and use contrary to the 99 years lease and that part of the finding by which the Additional Rent Controller dismissed the claim with respect to that part of the premises which were used by the respondent for his personal office and clinic. The respondent also filed an appeal against the partial decree for eviction granted by the Additional Rent Controller against him. Both these appeals were heard by the Tribunal and were disposed of together.