HARMOHAN DAS BAGAI Vs. TARSERN PARKASH GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Harmohan Das Bagai took on rent a shop in the ground floor in a building No. 8531/34,5 Arakashan Road, Pahar Ganj, Delhi, now belonging to the respondent. A room in the first floor above the shop was taken for purposes of residence on 7-1-1955, at Rs. 70.00 p.m. vide Ex. A-7. One more room was taken on the first floor on rent on 1-9-1956 at Rs. 50.00 p.m. vide Ex. A-8. An eviction petition was filed against him on 15-4-1968 under clause (e) of the proviso to sub-S. (1) of sectton 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the Act). In the written statement, he appears to have contended that there ware two tenancies; the first one was taken for residential- cum-commercial purposes, while the second was taken exclusively for business purposes. The petition ended in a compromise and was dismissed as withdrawn on 29-1-1973. According to the compromise, the rent was increased to Rs. 120.00 for the first tenancy and Rs. 8 ).00 for the second; in all Rs. 200.00 . A receipt (Ex. A-2=R-29) was issued on 29-1-1973 for the flat in the name of of Mohan Bagai. On the receipt (Ex. A-3) issued on 14-5-1975, the words "residential flat" has been written on the top thereof. Same is the position in respect of receipt (Ex. A-4) dated 17-12-1975 and receipt (Ex. A-5) dated 21-8-1976. Inreceipt (Ex. A-6)dited 11-3-1977, the two rooms have been shown as residential. On 5-7-1977, the landlord sent notice of termination to the tenant that the was the tenant in the residential flat on the first floor bearing No. 8531-34 consisting of two rooms, etc. at the rate of Rs. 200.00 p.m, that he had acquired vacant possession of a residential flat No. 17 in Reviera Apartment on the 4th floor, 45 Shamnath Marg Delhi, and that ihe tenant had kept the disputed premises locked. Inreply dated 22-7-1977, the tenant said that the premises were taken by him for business and residential purposes and are being used for the said purposes, that the tenant had acquired the said flat in early 1972 and this fact was in the knowledge of the landlord. He maintained that there were two separate tenancies and the receipts were issued in the name of Mohan Bagai which was the business name of the tenant. Fresh notices (Ex. A-9 and Ex. A-10 of 6-8-1977 were issued terminating the tenancies separately. On 23-8-1977 the tenant sent the reply which was almost similar to the earlier reply.

(2.) On 13-9-1977, the present petition for eviction was filed under clauses (d) and (h) of the proviso to sub-sec. (1) of sec-14 of the Act. This time clause (e) was not. invoked. The Addl. Controller by his judgment dated 21-12-1983 decreed the eviction on both the grounds. The learned Rent Controller Tribunal by its judgment dated 19-11-1983 upheld both the grounds of eviction and dismissed the appeal. Hence, this second appeal.

(3.) There is no doubt that the findings of the Tribunal below are of fac and are not amenable to interference, vide Karam Chand v. Om Devi,1980 Raj. L.R. 432.