SHEOCHAND RAM PRASAD Vs. SAVITRI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Suit premises is a room in a residential building It was being used as a godown by petitioner. Landlady's husband was an employee of MCD and was allotted a quarter. His allotment was cancelled and he sued petitioner u/s 14 A of Rent Act. Tenant sought leave to defend on the ground that premises was not residential Permission was refused and he approached High Court.] Judgment, para 4 onwards is :-

(2.) Thus, the conflict between the two parties was whether the property in question could be deemed to be residential property or, whether it was non-residential property. It is the common case of both the parties that the property is in fact used as a godown and from the plan filed in the case, seems to be entirely suited as a godown. Still, it is possible for even property which has been let for non- residential purposes to be deemed to be residential property within the meaning of Section 14 A of the Act.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that Section 14 A is not available for evicting tenants who are occupying non- residential premises. Counsel for the respondent states that the property is not non- residential and is in fact residential. I think, these contentions clearly raise a question of fact which requires to be ascertained on evidence and should normally entitle the tenant leave to defend the claim.