NANAK CHAND Vs. SHANTI GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dated 16th April 1986 in eviction case no. 190/79.

(2.) The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. The respondent Smt. Shanti Gupta filed a petition for eviction against one Shri Babu Ram in respect of property no. 2695, Chowk Raiji, Roshanpura, Nai Sarak, Delhi under Section 14(l)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Act. During the pendency of the eviction petition Shri Babu Ram died leaving behind the petitioner, Smt. Savitri Devi, Smt. Lakshmi and Smt. Gomit. Therefore, on an application made by the respondent under Order 22, Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Additional Rent Controller substituted these persons in place of late Shri Babu Ram.

(3.) It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the premises were let out to Shri Babu Ram both for residential-cum- commercial purpose in view of the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in Smt.Gian Devi Anand-v.Jeevan Kumar and Others, 27(1985) DLT(SC)460== AIR 1985 SC 796, the tenancy in respect of these premises was heritable and no order under Section 14(l)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Act could be passed by the Additional Rent Controller without going into the question of the letting purpose. Learned counsel submitted that if the premises are let out for commercial purpose the tenant cannot be evicted under Section 14(l)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Act, It was further submitted that assuming that the premises were let out for residential purpose even then the finding of the Additional Rent Controller that the petitioner was not financially dependent on Babu Ram is not correct and the petitioner is protected under Sec. 2(1) of the Act and is not governed by Explanation II to the said sub-section,