KHAIRUL NISSAN Vs. TUFAIL AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against the order dated 04 February 1978 of the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, reversing the order dated 24 September 1974 of the Addl. Rent Controller, Delhi and dismissing the appellant/landlady's (hereinafter referred to as the landlady) petition under section 14(l)(e) of the Act on the ground that the premises in question were not let out for residential purposes only but for residential-cum-commercial purposes.

(2.) Mst. Khairul Nissan daughter of late Mr. Haji Mumtazuddin, the landlady, filed a petition under section 14 (l)(e) of the Act against Mr. Tufail Ahmed, respondent/tenant (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) for his eviction from the premises, comprising of the entire first floor of the house No.5403, Kucha Rehman,Chandni Chowk, Delhi on the ground of non-payment of rent and bona fide requirement of the landlady, pleading that the premises in question had been let out by her father Haji Mumtazuddin to the tenant for residential purposes only, she was the owner and that the tenant be evicted. Arrears were paid and the eviction petition was contested by the tenant, denying that the landlady was the owner or that the premises had been let out only for residential purposes or that she bona fide required it for her or her family's residence. It was stated that the premises were let out for residential-cum-commercial purposes.

(3.) After recording evidence, the learned Addl. Rent Controller found that the landlady was the owner of the premises in question, which were let out only for residential purposes and she required the premises bona fide for her and her family's residence. He, accordingly, passed an order of eviction of the tenant. On appeal, the learned Rent Control Tribunal confirmed the Rent Controller's findings that the landlady was the owner of the premises and she needed it for her and her family's residence, as the same were not contested by the tenant. However, the learned Tribunal upset the finding of the Rent Controller regarding the letting purpose, as found. Accordingly, tenant's appeal was accepted and the order of the Rent Controller was modified to the extent that the eviction petition was dismissed with regard to the ground of bona fide requirement.