INDIAN CABLE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PREM CHANDRA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this second appeal, under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', arising out of an order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 10th April 1986 affirming order of eviction of the appellant-tenant made by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act, the main question of law which has arisen is: whether Clause (b) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act applies to residential premises let out to a company also.

(2.) The relevant facts lie within a narrow compass. The appellant is a public company having its registered office at Calcutta. The respondent let out his property No. 1 M-11, Greater Kailash No. 11, New Delhi, hereinafter referred to as the demised premises, to the appellant on terms and conditions contained in a deed of lease executed between the parties on 17th January, 1980. Clause (11) (c) of the lease deed contains one of the lessee's covenants in the following terms.

(3.) The Controller found, on the basis of the appellants' written statement, that the appellant "does not deny that it has purchased property at F-77A, Green Park, New Delhi". He found no merit in the contention that Section 14(1) (b) of the Act is applicable only to natural persons and not a company or other justice persons. The plea raised on behalf of the appellant that the acquired property has to be demolished and rebuilt and as such it cannot besaid to be available to the appellant as a residence was also rejected by the Controller. For want of specific denial of the pertinent facts averred in the eviction petition, the Controller passed an order of eviction against the appellant in respect of the demised premises undersection 14(l)(b). In appeal, the Tribunal confirmed- the order made by the Controller. The Tribunal also found that the appellant's intention to demolish the acquired property and to rebuild it "is of no consejucence" in as much as ''the residence house has been purchased by the appellant after becoming the tenant in the suit premises." Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal by an order dated 10th April 1986, from which the present appeal has arisea.