LATA MEHTA Vs. MACHINE TOOLS INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Controller, the landlord has preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.

(2.) The eviction petition was filed in the year 1980. It took sixteen years for the proceedings to culminate before the Rent Controller when the impugned order was passed on 1st February, 1996. Mr. Gupta learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the lease was in relation to one property D-262, Defence Colony. However, the lease was created of the main building pursuant to Ex.R-1 and of the portion of the garage by R-2 on the same date i.e. 8th January, 1974. The Rent Controller agreeing with the requirement of the petitioner held as there were two separate distinct tenancies and whereas in Ex.R-1 for the purposes of main building, the purpose of letting was residential and it was not so mentioned in Ex. R.2 in relation to garage and servant quarters, the omission of the word `residential' would constitute or would imply that the property was let out for composite purpose.

(3.) Mr. Gupta has contended that Rent Controller ought to have taken into consideration the nature of property, the purpose for which the property was constructed, the sanctioned plan of the property. He has also argued that according to the Master Plan area was residential and the main building having been let out for residential purposes, the finding of the Rent Controller on the basis of word residential missing from Ex. R-2 was contrary to law.