AGAN LAL Vs. KAPURI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal U/S 39 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, must be dismissed on the short ground that what the appellant seeks to raise are concluded by the concurrent findings of facts by the court below which could not. be allowed to be reagitated in the circumstances of this case in second appeal.

(2.) The facts leading to the appeal lie in narrow compass. The appellant has been a tenant in the premises in dispute for the last about 30 years. The respondent had purchased the property from the previous owner who in turn had purchased it from the. owner who had let out the premises to the appellant. The respondent sought the ejectment of the appellant, inter alia on the ground that premises in dispute had been let out to the appellant for the use as a residence and that since that appellant and members of his family shifted their residence to a house built by the appellant's wife, neither the appellant nor any member of his family has been residing in the premises in dispute, for a period of six months immediately before the date of the institution of the action for ejectment thereby rendering the appellant liable to ejectment under clause (d) of proviso to sub-section (I) of Section 14 of the Act. The allegation was denied by the appellant and on the trial of the application, the controller returned the finding that the appellant and other members of his family had shifted their residence to that house and that neither the appellant nor any member of his family has been residing in the premises in dispute during the requisite period and accordingly made the order for ejectment of the appellant from it under clause (d) aforesaid repelling the contentions of the appellant (a) that the Premises in dispute had been let out to the appellant both for residential and commercial purpose (b) that notwithstanding the shifting of the appellant's residence and that of other members of his family to the new house, the appellant had been carrying on business in a portion of the premises, (c) that an employee or the appellant in relation to his business had been residing in the premises, (d) that the appellant used the premises for rest and lunch during lunch time and (d) that the appellant should be deemed, therefore, to have been residing in the premises. The order was upheld by the Tribunal in appeal. The. other grounds on which ejectment of the appellant was sought were turned down by the Controller and the finding of the Controller having not been challenged before the Tribunal do not survive for the purpose of the present appeal.

(3.) The impugned orders have been assailed on behalf of the appellant on two grounds, namely : (a) the premises in dispute were not let out to the appellant for, the purposes of residence-cum-business and clause (d) of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 would have no application and (b) the appellant would be deemed to have been residing in the premises in dispute inasmuch as the appellant has been, carrying on some business operation in a portion of it and/or using the premises for the residence of an employee and for his own rest and it could not, therefore, be said that the appellant had not been using the premises for the purpose of residence.