GOKAL CHAND Vs. USHA KALRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the order passed by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal,Delhi in RCA No.107/2005 dated 15.10.2007 whereby the learned Additional Rent Control Tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner-tenant against the order of eviction passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dated 4.2.2005 in eviction petition bearing number E-194/2002 on the ground of misuser of the tenanted premises by the petitioner-tenant.

(2.) Admittedly, the respondent is the landlady of premises bearing No.A-35, Transit Camp, Govindpuri, New Delhi and the petitioner was the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.2000/- exclusive of water and electricity charges. The case of the respondent/landlady was that the premises were let out for residential purpose and that the petitioner had, after the expiry of the contractual tenancy which was for a period of 11 months, started using the same for a commercial purpose of running a denting and painting workshop of vehicles. The respondent relied on a rent agreement dated 20.5.1998 Ex.PW-1/1 which was in two pages. The first page was on a stamp paper of Rs.5 and the second page is typed on a plain sheet. Clause 3 of the rent agreement Ex.PW-1/1 stipulates the purpose of letting as residential. This clause is contained on the first page of the Agreement Ex.PW-1/1 which is Non Judicial Stamp paper of Rs.5/-.

(3.) The contention of the petitioner was that an agreement was got executed by the respondent/landlady by use of coercion on 20.5.1998. At that time the petitioner was already a tenant in the premises and that in that agreement, the purpose of letting was recorded as commercial and he was using the premises for commercial purposes. However, the agreement produced by the respondent/ landlady Ex.PW-1/1 was not the one signed by the tenant on 20.05.1998 and the original agreement had been held back, wherein the purpose of letting had been recorded as commercial. Though the date of the agreement is shown as 20.5.1998, it is not disputed by the respondent/landlady that the date mentioned on the stamp paper on its reverse is 21.5.1998. The first page of the agreement Ex.PW- 1/1 does not bear the signature of the petitioner/tenant. The petitioner disputes his signature on the second page which is the only page signed by the parties. The courts below have rejected the contention of the petitioner that since the stamp paper bears the date 21.5.1998 whereas the agreement bears the date 20.5.1998, it is proved that the said agreement is forged and fabricated.