HIRA SINGH Vs. SARDAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point involved in this revision petition is as to what was the purpose of letting. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act seeking eviction of the respondent-tenant on the ground that he requires the premises in question for his own bonafide need. According to the petitioner premises were let out for residential purposes only.

(2.) One of the objection taken by the tenant in the written statement was that the premises were let out for residential-cum-commercial purposes. The learned Additional Rent Controller by the impugned order has come to the conclusion that the letting purpose was residential-cum-commercial. The petitioner on or about 4th June, 1963 had filed a petition for fixation of standard rent of the premises in question. On 7th June, 1965 statements of the parties were recorded in the said proceedings. The tenant-respondent agreed to increase of rent from Rs. 2.87 to Rs. 37/- provided the petitioner-landlord does not object to his carrying on the business of dhobi. This statement of the tenant was accepted by the petitioner-landlord. In accordance with the statements of the parties the standard rent was enhanced from Rs. 2.87/- to Rs. 37/- and the petition for fixation of standard rent was accordingly disposed of. The learned Additional Rent Controller has primarily relied upon the statements made by the parties in the aforesaid earlier proceedings which ended in a compromise.

(3.) There is no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that what he had agreed in 1965 was that the tenant-respondent would carry on the business of ironing. The statements made by the parties are clear and unambiguous to the effect that the petitioner would have no objection to the respondents carrying on the business of dhobi. In fact it is irrelevant whether the respondent was running dhobi ghat or was only doing the business of ironing from the premises in question. It is clear from the statements that the parties agreed that the letting purpose would be commercial inasmuch as the petitioner will have no objection to the carrying on of the business of dhobi by the respondent. Even in his statement in these proceedings the petitioner has admitted that the respondent was carrying on the business of ironing from the premises in question. The petitioner took full benefit of the compromise referred to above whereby the standard rent was increased and petitioner gave his no objection for tenant carrying on business of dhobi. There is no infirmity in the impugned order. No ground has been made out to reverse the order of the learned Additional Rent Controller which is stated above, is primarily based upon the earlier statements made by the parties and the oral evidence of the petitioner and the respondent.