(1.) This civil revision has been brought under Section 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 challenging the eviction order dated 16th July, 1987 passed by Shri J.M. Malik, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi on the ground of eviction covered by clause (e) of subsection (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the eviction order on three grounds: Firstly that the finding of the Controller that the premises have been let out for residential purposes only is perverse and is based on mis-reading of the document of lease containing the term with regard to the letting purposes; Secondly that the finding of the Controller that the respondent landlord bonafide requires the premises for occupation for himself and his family members dependant upon him is also based on misunderstanding of the evidence led on the record and; thirdly that the landlord is also wrongly held to be not in possession of reasonably alternate suitable accommodation.
(3.) The facts in brief are : that the premises bearing No. D-12, Kalindi Colony, New Delhi came to be let out to the petitioner which is a private limited company with effect from 1st August, 1974. In paragraph 14 of the petition where the landlord was required to disclose whether any agreement of lease had been executed or not, the landlord remained silent. The landlord, of course, pleaded that the premises have been let out for residential purposes only. In the written statement it was specifically pleaded by the tenant/petitioner that the premises were let out on the basis of a rent agreement executed between the parties and the said agreement contained a specific term that the premises could be used for residential-cumcommercial purposes. Thus, the ground of bonafide requirement is not available to the landlord. In evidence, the landlord ultimately had to admit that lease deed of which duplicate is Ext. R-1 was executed between the parties. Clause 5 of this lease deed reads as follows :