MOOL CHAND GARG, J

1. This second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is directed against the Additional Rent Control Tribunal's judgment dated 18.11.1999 which ordered eviction of the appellant. This appeal really did not survive after 12.7.2006 when, in CM (Main) 68/2000 filed by two sons of the deceased-tenant Sant Singh (namely Sukhbir Singh and Hardeep Singh), a learned Single Judge of this Court by a detailed judgment upheld this very (i.e., the impugned) judgment and eviction order of the ARCT. However, since this appeal by the third son of the deceased-tenant (namely Trilochan Singh) has remained pending thereafter, and has now been heard, I propose to examine the matter in its entirety.

2. On 25.2.1945, a residential plot of land measuring 97 sq.yards bearing Khasra No.1406/370 in Karol Bagh area was leased out by the Government to Shri Kishori Lal, son of Shri Mangal Sen. After certain transfers, Bharat Singh became the owner. On this plot a residential house had been built. This property came to be known as House No.2809, Gali No.19, OR 2473, Gali No.9, Beadonpura, Block-M, Naiwala, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The Government's lease of the land underneath was renewed on 17.8.1963 by the DDA, and taking into account the transfer of ownership in the meantime, was granted in favour of Bharat Singh. Upon Bharat Singh's death on 16.9.1975, his son Daya Shankar (Respondent No.1) became the owner.

3. The submission of the appellant in short is that the suit property was let out in 1952 for commercial purpose and in any case was put to commercial use and was not objected to, and therefore user became commercial. On Sant Singh's death, the tenancy rights were inherited by all his Class I legal heirs, each of whom became a protected tenant.

4. Respondent No.1 landlord's case is that the premises are part of a residential house built on a plot of land leased out by the Government only for residential purpose. Rent Note Ex. AW-2/4 also records the purpose of letting to be residential. A tenant by his own act and in breach of the terms of the rent note cannot convert the purpose to commercial, and that the tenant's widow Kailash Kaur availed the benefit of the 1976 amendment in law for 20 years till her death in 1993 on the basis that it was residential.

5. The background facts are that on 6.5.1952, Bharat Singh had let out a portion of this house comprising one room, bathroom and toilet to Sant Singh at a rent of Rs.22 per month vide Rent Note Ex.AW-2/4. 20 years later, by notice dated 7.7.1972 Ex.AW-1/1, Sant Singh's tenancy was terminated. The tenant Sant Singh died on 10.1.1973.

6. On 13.3.1973, landlord Bharat Singh filed a civil suit for possession [Suit 16/73, later Suit 712/74] against the legal heirs of Sant Singh. In this civil suit for possession, the heirs of tenant Sant Singh filed application dated 19.1.1976 stating that under the 1975 Ordinance (1976 amendment to the Act), the widow Kailash Kaur got a right to remain as a tenant and, therefore, the suit was no longer maintainable, and upon which, this suit, on 20.1.1976, was disposed of as having become infructuous.

7. On 1.11.1977, landlord Daya Shankar (who succeeded his father late Sh.Bharat Singh) filed a petition before Competent Authority (Slums) seeking permission to file an eviction petition. Vide judgment dated 8.12.1978 the Competent Authority (Shri G.C.Jain as his Lordship then was) returned a finding that the purpose of letting was residential and granted permission to sue for eviction.

8. On 18.4.1979, the first eviction petition 86/79 for bonafide requirement was filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. This was dismissed on 22.1.1987 as the purpose was not proved to be residential.

9. In coming to that conclusion, no reference was made to the DDA's lease of the land underneath, however the Rent Note was referred but the same was brushed aside, each of which provided for only residential use.

10. While the eviction