Back
High Court Of Delhi
V.B.RAJU - Appellant
Versus
R.L.MAHINDROO - Respondent
Civil 333 of 1982
Decided On : 04/26/1982
RENT CONTROL ACT - SECTION 14 (1) (E) - BONA FIDE PERSONAL REQUIREMENT - AMENDMENT OF PETITION - PURPOSE OF LETTING - RESIDENTIAL OR NON-RESIDENTIAL - CONSENT OF LANDLORD FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL USE - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The tenant challenged the eviction order passed against him on the ground of bona fide personal requirement by the landlord under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The tenant argued that the landlord had not pleaded that he had no other reasonably suitable accommodation and that the purpose of letting was not residential only.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the landlord had rightly been allowed to amend the petition to include the plea that he had no other reasonably suitable accommodation. The court also held that the premises were let out for residential purposes only and that the tenant's use of the premises as an advocate's office was prohibited under the terms of the tenancy agreement. The court further held that there was no evidence that the landlord had consented to the tenant's use of the premises as an advocate's office.
Issues: 1. Whether the landlord was entitled to amend the petition to include the plea that he had no other reasonably suitable accommodation? 2. Whether the premises were let out for residential purposes only? 3. Whether the tenant's use of the premises as an advocate's office was prohibited under the terms of the tenancy agreement? 4. Whether there was any evidence that the landlord had consented to the tenant's use of the premises as an advocate's office?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the landlord was entitled to amend the petition to include the plea that he had no other reasonably suitable accommodation because the objection to the petition was taken at an early stage of the trial and no prejudice was caused to the tenant. 2. The court held that the premises were let out for residential purposes only based on the terms of the tenancy agreement and the counterfoils of rent receipts which described the property as residential. 3. The court held that the tenant's use of the premises as an advocate's office was prohibited under the terms of the tenancy agreement which specifically barred the use of the premises for trade or commerce. 4. The court held that there was no evidence that the landlord had consented to the tenant's use of the premises as an advocate's office, as the tenant's averment in the written statement was not supported by any evidence.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the tenant's revision petition and upheld the eviction order passed by the lower court.
( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against order of the learned Additional Rent Controller, dt. 6. 1. 82 whereby after permitting the tenant leave to appear and contest the eviction petition and after going through the trial thereof has accepted the ejectment application filed by the respondent-landlord on the ground of bona fide personal requirement against the petitioner.
( 2 ) THE respondent filed an application for ejectment of the tenant-petitioner on or about 30-1-1976 under Sub section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the Act) on the following averments : 18 (a) (i) That the premises were let out to the respondent for use as residence and the same is now required bonafide by the petitioner who is the owner thereof for use as residence for self and other members of his family dependent upon him. (ii) The petitioner was residing alongwith his son Shri S. L. Mohindroo in premises No. 10. Under Hill Road, a requisitioned property by the Delhi Administration and orders for vacating the same have been passed by the ADJ, Shri D. C. Agarwal whereby the time upto 31. 3. 76 has been granted to the petitioner and other members of his family to vacate the premises.
( 3 ) THE tenant-petitioner took various pleas including the plea that the landlord has not pleaded that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation available with him and also that the landlord ws not the owner. It was also pleaded in the leave application that the purpose of letting was not residential only. I, however, need not give the details of these pleas as in view of these pleas the tenant-petitioner was allowed leave to appear and contest the eviction petition and thereafter the landlord applied for amendment of the petition by an application dated 20-12-1976 to add in paragraph 18 (a) (i) of the petition that "he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation for himself and for the members of his family dependent upon him". This application for amendment was filed soon after the leave was granted to the tenant to appear and contest the eviction petition.
( 4 ) THE learned Addl. R. C. held that the landlord was the owner of the premises, the premises were let for residential purposes only, the landlord-respondent has got no other reasonably suitable accommodation available to him and the premises in dispute were bonafide required by the landlord.
( 5 ) THE tenant has come up in revision under the proviso to Section 25-B (8) of the Act.
( 6 ) THE petitioner, apart from oral submissions. has filed written argumentsfter I had issued a notice to show cause to the landlord as to why the petition for revision should not be admitted. The written arguments are reproduced hereunder :-
"1. As held by the Delhi High Court in A. I. R. 1981 Delhi 305 that if eviction petition is defective it should be summarily rejected and it cannot be allowed to be amended. It is therefore immaterial whether in the instant case petition had been amended or not. In the 4th additional ground in my petition of C. R. P. 333/82 I stated that it was wrongly allowed to be amended. 2. In column 14 of eviction petition it is stated that tenancy began in July, 1974 But the landlord relies on document Rule 3 which merely changed the terms of tenancy. It allows all uses except for office for trade or commerce. It does not say that all uses other than residence are prohibited. So, it is submitted that in view of 1968 (1) S. C. R. 536, the tenant cannot be evicted. 3. When the terms are reduced to the form of a document. Section 91 of the Evidence Act does not permit use of any other evidence to prove the terms of tenancy either documentary or oral. Landlord wants to rely on some counterfoils of the year 1977. No tenant studies counterfoils of rent receipt kept by landlord in his writing, for his use and kept in his custody. They are inadmissible because they are documents of landlord and cannot be used in his favour. They are also irrelevant because they pert
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
