HARMOHAN DAS BAGAI Vs. T P GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Harmohan Das Bagai took on rent a shop in the ground floor in a building at 5, Arakashan Road, Pahar Ganj. A room in the first floor above the shop was taken for purposes of residence on 7.1.55, at Rs.70 p.m. One more room was taken on the first floor on rent on 1.9.56 at Rs. 50 p. m. An eviction petition was filed against him on 15.4.68 u/s 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the Act). In the W/S, he appears to have contended that there were two tenancies ; the first one was taken for residential cum-commereial purposes, while the second was taken exclusively for business purposes. The petition ended in a compromise and was dismissed as withdrawn on 29.1.73. According to the compromise, the rent was increased to Rs. 120.00 for the first tenancy and Rs. 80 for the second ; in all Rs. 200.00. A receipt was issued on 29.1.73 for the flat in the name of Mohan Bagai. On the receipt issued on 14.5.75, the words "residential flat" has been written on the top thereof. Same is the position in respect of receipt ofl7.12.75 and receipt of 21.8.76. In receipt of 11.3.77, the two rooms have been shown as residential. On 5.7.77, the landlord sent notice of termination to the tenant that he was the tenant in the residential flat on the first floor 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, and that the tenant had kept the disputed premises locked. In prely 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 were given & the eviction petition was filed which was decreed by the Additional R.C. on 21.12.82 on both the grounds. The learned Rent Control Tribunal by its judgment dated 19.11.83 upheld both the grounds of eviction and dismissed the appeal. Hence, this second appeal.

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

(3.) However, the first question that falls for determination u/s 14(l)(d) and (h) of the Act is whether the premises in question were let out for residential purposes only. This is clear from the words of clause (d) itself and in respect of clause (h), it was so held in Hari Shankar v. Musaddi Lal, 1970 RCR 782. The contention of the tenant is that the purpose of letting was not exclusively residential. The basis for so contending lirstly is that after 29.1.73 the tenancy has changed in the name of Mohan Bagai and the rent receipts were issued in the name of Mohan Bagai which is the business name of the tenant Harmohan Das Bagai, and secondly, is that he has been conducting his business in & from these premises.