INTEROCEAN SHIPPING CO Vs. RAM LUBHAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the tenant's revision petition against the order of the Additional Rent Controller, directing his eviction under section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. It was alleged by the tenant that the premises were taken for the purposes of residence as well as business. It was also contended that the requirement of the landlords was not bonafide.

(2.) At the time of arguments, it was agreed between the parties that the tenancy was created by a lease deed dated 22-3-68. This document was produced in the Trial Court but was not exhibited. I permitted the petitioner to pay the additional stamp duty & penalty and he has exhibited the lease deed as Exhibit C-1.

(3.) As regards the nature of tenancy, two clauses in the lease deed are crucial, Clause 12 and Clause 16. Clause 12 reads, "that the lessee shall use the premises for the purpose of his residence only" and Clause 16 reads as, "That the lessee agrees to pay Rs. 100.00 as advance per month as extra charges which may be incurred from LAND & DEVELOPMENT OFFICE for the use of Barsati accommodation as office. This advance shall be only applicable as from the date Barsati is used as an office, notice about which shall be given by the Lessee to the Lessor in writing. This sum is adjustable towards the extra taxes paid, and if the taxes areless than the same shall be refunded to the Lessee. If any additional part of the accommodation is utilized for office purposes, the Lessee shall be liable for additional charges on the above terms." It is clear from these two clauses that the primary purpose of letting out the premises was residence. The tenant could, however, use the Barsati and any additional part of the accommodation for office purposes on giving prior notice to the lessor in writing. The additional amounts payable wherefor the payment to the Land & Development Office and additional taxes. It is admilted that no such notice in writing for use of accommodation for office purposes was given by the tenant to the landlord. The evidence of the tenant shews that the Barsati was used for office premises for some period. It is further admitted by the tenant that he had shifted bis office from the Barsati to elsewhere on 1-10-76. Notice to quit was given to him by the landlords in February, 1977 and in March 1977 the eviction petition was filed. It is thus clear that at the time of the filing of the eviction petition no part of the premises were being used by the tenant for commercial purposes. The tenant has unsuccessfully tried to assert that he started reusing the part of the premises for commercial purposes from 1979 again. There is no evidence on record besides his own statement.