The letting purpose of premises is determined by the terms of the tenancy, the nature of the premises, the locality, and the user of the premises from the inception of the tenancy. Incidental use of the premises for business purposes, without the landlord's consent, does not change the letting purpose.

( 1 ) THIS civil revision has been brought under Section 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act challenging the eviction order dated November 5, 1985, passed by Shri G. D. Dhanuka, Additional Rent Controller, on the ground of bona fide requirement for residence covered by clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

( 2 ) MR. R K. Aggarwal, counsel appearing for the petitioner-tenant, has challenged this eviction order only on one point that the finding of the Additional Rent Controller that the premises had been let out to the petitioner-tenant for residential purpose only is perverse and so, the same should be set aside. The findings of the Additional Rent Controller that the respondent is the landlord-owner of the premises in question and the said premises are required by him for occupation as residence and also for his family members dependent upon him and he is not in possession of any reasonably alternative suitable residential accommodation, aie not challenged before me.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the case set up in the petition, the premises let out to the tenant are residential while the tenant pleaded that in fact, the premises had been let out to him for residential-cum-commercial purposes since May 1979 and from the very inception of the tenancy he has been using the premises for composite purposes inasmuch as he has been carrying on business of supply of hospital clothing and surgicals under the name and style of M/s. R. K. . Enterprises from the premises in question. In the replication the contention of the tenant in this respect was controverted by the landlord. The landlord appeared as AW 1 and examined his neighbour AW 2 Shri Batla and AW 3 Smt. Krishna Devgun, through whom the premises are stated to have been let out, to prove that the premises were let out to the petitioner for residential purposes only and they have not seen the petitioner carrying on any business in the premises in question. The tenant came as RW 1 and deposed that in fact, he took the premises for composite purposes and he has been using the said premises for commercial purposes as well since the very inception of the tenancy and he proved on record Exs. RW1/1 to RW1/8, RW2/1 to RW2/8 and RW4/1 to RW4/7 the documents showing that he has been receiving certain business correspondence at the address of the premises inquestion. He admitted that he has been knowing Smt. Krishna Devgun since 1967. The tenant for the first time came out with the story that in fact, the tenancy was settled through one Surinder Pal, property dealer. It is not out of place to mention that the landlord had at the very initial stage of the case while contesting the application of the tenant seeking leave to defend, taken a specific plea that the premises were let out through Smt. Krishna Devgun. The tenant in the written statement did not come up with the plea that in fact, the premises had been let out through any Surinder Pal, Property Dealer, Thus, the Additional Rent Controller was right in coming to the conclusion that this plea of the tenant that Surinder Pal, Property Dealer, was instrumental in bringing about the letting of the premises in question is an after-thought plea. He had given reasons to disbelieve RW5 Surinder Pal inasmuch as Surinder Pal claimed that he was maintaining regular register in which he has been making entries regarding transactions yet for reasons unknown did not care to preserve that register. If he has been working as regular property dealer,,there is no reason that he should not preserve his record and should destroy the same. He has not given any reason for destroying the said record. The tenant examined RW2 Arun Kumar, RW3 Paras Ram, RW4 Ved Prakash, RW6 Abdul Aziz and RW7 Khem Chand to show that they have business dealings with the petitioner-tenant at the premises in question. The nature of the business of the petitioner appears to be that he procures orders from different customers and arranges