SURAJ PARKASH OM PARKASH Vs. LADHA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Second Appeal against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, dated February 14, 1964, whereby the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi dismissed by the appeal of the appellants and affirmed the decision of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dated 20th August, 1963, holding that the landlords are estopped from making an application for eviction of the tenant.

(2.) The facts of this case are that the respondent is a tenant under these appellants in a garage in house bearing Municipal No. 4/41, situated in Western Extension Area, Karol Bagah, New Delhi, on a monthly rent of Rs. 60. The appellants-landlord made on application under Section 145 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (Act 59 of 1958) for ejectment of the tenant on the ground that the tenant has, notwithstanding previous notice to the tenant, used or dealt with the premises in occupation in a manner contrary to the conditions imposed on the landlords while giving the lease of the land on which the premises are situated. It was stated in the application that the premises could be used only for residence and the respondent is using it as a tea stall in spite of notice and that the Delhi Development Authority has threatened to demolish the building and take forcible possession of the land.

(3.) The application was resisted on the ground that the application as made by the firm Suraj Parkash Om Parkash and the firm not being a legal entity cannot be the landlord. It was also stated that the petitioner firm being an unregistered firm could not sue to enforce the rights arising from the contract, namely, the lease deed, and thus the application was barred by Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. On merits, it was contended that the premises were let to the respondent for business purposes and so are non-residential. The premises let out to the tenant is a garage and it was stated that the landlords initially let out the premises for business purposes by the Delhi Development Trust and Delhi Municipal Committee. It was also contended, that the landlords let out the premises for business purpose and dishonestly concealed it from the respondent that there was any prohibition by the Delhi Improvement Trust or Municipal Committee to use them for business purposes. It was also averred that the landlords are estopped from evicting the tenant on the alleged ground and that the tenant had been using the premises for business purposes as a tea stall since 10th July, 1953 and the landlords residing in the same premises have full knowledge of it. The landlords, according to the tenant, made the application mala-fide with the ulterior motive of increasing the rent of the premises under threats of eviction. It was also alleged that no previous notice, as alleged was served by the landlords on the respondent-tenant.