A N PAREEKH Vs. N H NAQVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri A.N. Pareekh, tenant, has brought this petitionunder Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred toas 'the Act') challenging the eviction order dated 2/04/1987, of Shri PremKumar, Additional Rent Controller, passed against him on the ground ofeviction covered by clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act inrespect of the southern unit of house No. Z-7, Hauz Khas, New Delhi, asshown in red colour in the plan Ex. AW1/1.

(2.) The petitioner has challenged the order of eviction on two grounds,firstly that the finding of the Additional Rent Controller that the premises inquestion had been let out to the petitioner-tenant only for residential purposesis perverse and wrong and secondly, that the Additional Rent Controller haswrongly come to the conclusion that the respondent-landlord is not in possession of alternate reasonably suitable accommodation.

(3.) The facts, in brief, are that the respondent has been holdinghigh official positions in the Government as he held the post of Secretary,Central Board of Revenue, later on Commissioner of Income-Tax, Directorof Inspection, Income-Tax Investigation, a job equivalent to the post of JointSecretary, Ministry of Finance and he retired as permanent Commissioner ofIncome Tax in the year 1964. He was occupying house No. C-1/7, HardingAvenue, New Delhi, which was quite a palatial house comprising of three bedrooms, dining, drawing rooms, office rooms verandah; garage, servant quartersand lawns. He purchased the plot of the property in question in the year1959 vide sale deed, certified copy of which is Ex. AW 10/1 and he completed theconstruction on the said plot in July 1966, which comprises of two units, namely,southern unit and northern unit, each having the accommodation comprisingof drawing room, dining room, kitchen, bath room on the ground floor, threebed rooms, two bath rooms and covered verandah on the first floor and aservant quarter with lavatory-cum-bath room over the garage and the northernportion also has a barsati floor comprising of one big room converted intotwo rooms and facility of toilet. Since the completion of the house, the respondent lived in that house with his wife upto April 1969. Respondent hasno issue of his own, his wife has a daughter from her previous marriage andAW1 Shahida Latif is the grand daughter of respondent's wife from thatdaughter. It is undisputed before me that from her very birth, Shahida Latif(since about 1939) has been brought up by the respondent as his daughteralthough according to the tenets of Personal Mohammedan Law applicableto the respondent he could not legality adopt any daughter yet he has beentreating AWI as his daughter for all these years. It is the respondent whogot her married. From the wedlock two daughters have been born in the year1967 and 1969. Shahida Lalif was married in the year 1964. Respondenthad got assignment as Additional General Manager in M/s. Geep Flash LightIndustries Limited, Allahabad and he joined that post with effect from 1/05/1969. His wife also joined him at Allahabad in July or August 1969.Respondent's adopted daughter and her family were allowed to live in thenorthern portion of the house for residential purposes but after the respondent'swife also shifted to Allahabad, the entire house was given in the use andoccupation of AWI and her family members and the respondent had taken allhis luggage from the said house to Allahabad in August 1969. It is thecase of the respondent that after about a year and a half Shahid Latif in oneof her letters apprised him about some theft having taken place in theneighbourhood and on account of security reasons and also that southren halfof the portion was kept neat and clean that respondent decided to let out thesouthern portion of the house for residential purposes for short durations sothat the same could become available to the respondent and his wife whenresdondent's assignment at Allahabad was to come to an end. Initially thesaid portion was let out to one Bhajan Lal Sajjan Kumar with effect from 15/08/1970, for a period of 11 months at the rental of Rs.500-/ permensem for the accommodation and Rs. 300.00 p.m. hire charges forelectrical equipments and furnishings and fittings, but the said tenant vacatedthe premises after three months and the same premises including garagebut excluding the barsati floor came to be let out to M/s. Alok UdyogLimited on the same rent and hire charges with effect from 1/01/1971,for a period of one year vide letter of tenancy Ex. AW6/1 for residentialpurposes only and that tenant came to vacate the premises on 20/11/1971. The respondent has, in his testimony which remained, unchallengedmentioned that he had received two offers for renting out the said accommodation for better rent with more security but in view of the recommendationof Mr. Ahsan Rizvi, a common friend of the parties, respondent agreed to letout the said premises to the petitioner for residential purposes for a limitedperiod of 11 months and in view of the fact that the petitioner was a veryclose friend of Mr. Rizvi, who in turn was close friend of the respondent, thepetitioner was required to give only one month's rent as security depositinstead of six month's rent which was offerred by other prospective tenants.Before the lease was finalised with the petitioner, on 6/11/1971, therespondent had written a letter to Mr. Kalbe Ali Khan, who was negotiatingthe tenancies of the said portion with different persons on behalf of therespondent. It was made clear by the respondent that the premises are to belet out to the petitioner on the same terms and conditions on which thepremises were let out to the tenants earlier. Ex. AW10/3 is the copy of thesaid letter which was also endorsed to the petitioner vide covering letterEx. AW10/4 (copy). Admittedly, the possession of the premises inquestionwas delivered to the petitioner and his tenancy commenced from 1/12/1971, at the same rent on which the premises stood let out to the previoustenants. The terms of the tenancy came to be incorporated in two agreements,one pertaining to the accommodation and the other regarding the hire chargesfor electrical equipments, fittings and furnishings. Those agreements wereexecuted on December 20, 19/1, which are Ex. AW12/5 and marked 'X'Necessary deficiency in the stamp duty and the pena.lty imposed thereupon badbeen already deposited by the respondent and only objection which was raisedwith regard to admissibility of this particular document was about its nonregistration However, the Additional Rent Controller has, after makingreference to the case law on the point, come to the conclusion that the term withregard to the letting purpose incorporated in this particular document can beread into evidence as a collateral term in view of Section 49 of the RegistrationAct. This legal proposition has not been challenged before me. So, accordingto the written agreement between the parties, the premises had been let outto the petitioner for residential purposes only.