BHAI RAM Vs. MADAN LAL GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant has come up in revision against theorder passed on 15/10/1993 by Shri D.S.Bawa, Additional Rent Controller,Delhi dismissing his application seeking leave to contest and simultaneouslypassing an order of his eviction from the ground floor of House No.7233 to 7236 in1/38 Roop Nagar, Delhi.

(2.) . The tenant's eviction was sought by the landlord/respondent underSection 14(1 )(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act")for his bona fide use and occupation by the landlord for himself and for othermembers of his family dependent upon him. It was alleged that premises areresidential and were let out for residence and are also located in residential colony.Neither the landlord nor any member of his family owned any other residentialaccommodation in Delhi, New Delhi or at any other place and claimed that hisfamily consists of himself, his wife, two daughters, his son and parents. In addition,there was a servant. The landlord in the eviction petition gave details of themanner in which he proposed to use and utilise every part of the building inquestion owned by him having four units therein, two in each floor, each describedseparately by a distinct number with disputed premises known as House No. 7233and the others 7234 to 7236. The tenant sought leave to contest by filing anapplication within the period of limitation. In the affidavit, the tenant took up aplea that the entire property 1/38, Roop Nagar, Delhi was constructed by itsowner/landlord Shri Dal Chand Thekadar about 40 years back. Ground floorportion comprising many units were let out by the owner to the members of weakerSection of society for using the tenanted premises for residential-cum-commercialpurpose. It was alleged that he was also let out the accommodation in the groundfloor more than 30 years ago under the explicit consent, knowledge and permissionof the landlord/owner for using the tenanted premises for residential as well ascommercial purposes like other tenants of the ground floor. According to thetenant, he had been carrying on part/whole time business of different nature suchas florist, a repair and assembly of old iron strips, tailoring and cuttings,upholstery, supply of sofa set material, assembling and packing of electrical goodsetc. to earn his livelihood. It was also disclosed by the tenant in the affidavit thatin the locality each and every house in the ground floor was being used forresidence-cum-commercial purpose, since this area was otherwise surrounded bymany big industries like Greshem Factory, Jolly Factory etc. Eversince he wasinducted as a tenant, he had been making use of the property for residence-cum-commercial purpose. The tenant has also given detail of accommodation in theground floor of the complex with other tenants by disclosing their names who havebeen using their accommodation for residence-cum-commercial purpose. Anotherground taken by the tenant seeking leave to contest was that the landlord hadsufficient accommodation on the ground floor, first floor and terrace in which hecould comfortably accommodate the entire family. It was alleged that names ofparents had been got transferred in ration-card to the present address just tosubstantiate a false plea of bona fide requirement. Otherwise, the parents of thelandlord had got their own independent business and had their separate rationcards. According to the tenant, the landlord along with his elder brother and hisfamily were residing at House No. 20/45, Shakti Nagar, Delhi, which was sufficientto meet the requirements of landlord, his family as also the brother of the landlordand his family.

(3.) . The landlord contested the tenants claim by filing the reply. In his affidavit,the landlord denied that premises were let out for carrying on any commercialactivity therein. It was contended that the premises were let out for residentialpurpose only and had been used as such. As per his version, commercial activitiesare prohibited in the locality. Regarding the details which the tenant has given inhis affidavit about the other persons making use of their accommodation also forresidential-cum-commercial purpose, the landlord contended that he had no concern with those persons but mere use of premises by those persons will not convertresidential premises into a commercial premises. Landlord asserted his claim thatpremises were badly needed for his bona fide use and occupation and for othermembers of family.