ASHOK KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these cases same questions of fact and laware involved. Hence, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) . The appellants are occupying different portions of propertyNo. 1 SA/36, Western Extension Area, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, as tenants.under the respondent. The' eviction petitions were brought against thesetenants by the landlord on the ground of eviction covered by Sec. 14(l)(k)of the Delhi Rent Control Act ('the Act').

(3.) . The two Courts below have given findings that premises havebeen let out for commercial purposes. It is not in dispute that according tothe terms of the lease under which the property is held by the respondent,the property could be used only for residential purposes. The ground ofeviction covered by Clause (k) was upheld by both the Courts and there isno challenge to the said findings of the two Courts below. Clause (k) readsas follows: