SAMEY PAL SINGH Vs. K M SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal by the tenant is directed against theorder dated 24.10.1986 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi wereby hisfirst appeal against the order of eviction was dismissed.

(2.) The respondent filed an eviction petition under clauses (h) and (j)proviso (1) to section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. In paragraph 18(a)of the petition, it was alleged as follows :-

(3.) It is not necessary to reproduce the pleadings regarding clause (j)inasmuch as the case based on the said clause was found against the landlordand has not been challenged either before the Tribunal or before this Court.The eviction order was passed under clause (h) of section 14(1) of the Act. Inthe original written statement as also in the amended written statement initiallyin reply to para 18 of the petition, it was denied that the appellant-tenant hadacquired vacant possession of a double storeyed house as alleged but in thelater paragraph i.e. paragraph 19 it was admitted that the house mentioned bythe landlord in his eviction petition was acquired bat it was pleaded thatthe same was not suitable for residence of the tenant. It was further pleadedthat clause (h) was not applicable inasmuch as the premises in dispute were letto the tenant for residence-cum-commercial purpose and the tenant was carrying on his tailoring work also in the same premises.