P.C. Gandhi And Anr. vs Educational Consultants India ...
1989 Latest Caselaw 57 Del

JUDGMENT

B.N. Kirpal, J.

(1) The petitioners are owners of house No. A-l/lll, Safdarjang Enclave, New Delhi and have filed the present Revision Petition against the order of the Additional Rent Controller who had dismissed the petitioners' eviction application under section 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

(2) By a lease deed dated 1st July, 1982 the aforesaid house was given on rent by the petitioners to the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 10000.00 . The petitioners subsequently filed a petition under section 14(l)(e) read with section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act on 31st January, 1984, inter alia, contending that the premises in question were residential and were bona fide required by the petitioners and members of the family who were dependant upon them.

(3) The respondents denied the averments made by the petitioners. It was the case of the respondents that the premises were not let for residential purposes and they were given on rent for office purposes. It was submitted that the petition under section 14(l)(e) was, therefore, not maintainable. It was also the case of the respondents that the premises were not.bona fide required by the petitioners for .their use;and occupation and the petitioners. had alternative accommodation with them.. . .

(4) The aforesaid reply was filed after leave .to. defend, .had been granted..Thei-eafter evidence was recorded and on 21st AprU,1986 Shri Ajit Bharihake, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dismissed the petition on the ground that the. petitioners had.failed to establish that the letting purpose was .purely residential. The'Addl.Rent,.Controllercame to the conclusion that on a correct interpretation of. the lease deed.the premises in question had .been let for office cum-guest house purposes.; He, however, decided.in fav our of the petitioners the issue with.regard to the bona fide need of the premises in question. After, taking into,consideration the facts of this case. the Addl. Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the petitioners, bona fide required the premises in question.for their residence and they did. not have alternative suitable residential accommodation in Delhi. The petition was, however, dismissed because, as alrady.noted, the same was not maintainable because the premises had,.been.found to have been let,for office-cum-guest house purposes. .

(5) In this petition the challenge is to the finding of the Additional Rent Controller that the premises were not let for purely residential purposes.

(6) In the present case a registered lease deed was executed at the time when the premises were demised. The lease' deed' Contains clause which determines the letting purpose. The said clause 7 is as follows ; "The Lessee shall use the demised premises for office and Guest House purpose subject to permission of Delhi Development Authority. The Lessee shall obtain such permission from the DDA. The Lessee shall pay all charges/penalties levied by the DDA/any Govt, Authority for office use of the demised residential premises currently and/or in future. Any increase or decrease in such charges payable to Dda shall be paid by the Lessee. The Lessers shall have no obligations-financial or otherwise-in this respect. However, the Lessers shall give their consent to Dda for office and Guest House use of the demised premises." It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that on a correct interpretation of the aforesaid clauses 7 the only conclusion possible is that the premises were not let for office purposes. It is submitted that the respondents were permitted to apply to the Dda for permission to use the premises in question for office purposes and in case this permission was not granted, the effect would be that the premises, which were residential in nature and in a residential colony, could not have been used for office purposes.

(7) On the evidence on record, the Addl. Rent Controller came to the conclusion that a similar clause bad been inserted in a lease deed which was executed between the petitioners and the previous tenants. The previous tenants were the Institute of Company Secretaries and they had their office at the said premises. The Addl. Rent Controller then came to the conclusion that as the premises were let to the present tenants while retaining similar clause 7 as existed in the earlier deed, it clearly showed that the intention of the owners was to let out the premises for office purposes.

(8) I am in complete agreement with the finding of the Additional Rent Controller in this regard. It is true that in clause 7 the premises in question are described as residential premises but this description of the premises as residential is with regard to the fear of the levy of charges or penalties for using the residential premises for office purposes. The lease deed, read as a whole, does not contain any other provision which can indicate as to what is the letting purpose. It is only clause 7 which deals with the question of letting purpose of the premises in question. It is clear that as far as the petitioners were concerned, they were ready and willing to let out the premises for office-cum-guest house purposes. The clause with., regard to the letting of the premises, namely, clause 7 can lead to no other conclusion. If the clause had stated that "in the event of the respondents not getting permission from the Dda to use the premises for office purposes then in that event the respondents could use the premises only for residential purposes", then, possibly, the petitioners may have been able to contend that the premises were let-out for residential purposes but, with the permission of the Dda, the premises could be used for office purposes and as no permission had been received from the Dda, therefore., the premises were not let for office purposes. In the present case clause 7 does not state that the premises are to be used only for residential purposes in the event of the requisite permission not being received from the Dda, Clause 7 envisages only one use for the said premises and that is office-cum-guest house.

(9) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Institute of Company Secretaries had obtained the permission from the DDA. Assuming that such a permission had been obtained, it clearly shows that as far as the owners are concerned, they were interested in letting out the premises only for office purposes. The Add]. Rent Controller has found that the clause in the present case, namely clause 7, is similar to the clause in the lease deed between the petitioners and the Institute of Company Secretaries which had been entered into earlier and, therefore, it is reasonable to presume that the letting purpose, as far as the petitioners were concerned, was the same, namely, commercial. Jt has also been contended that till today no permission has been obtained by the respondents to use the said premises for commercial purposes. That is immaterial as far as the letting purpose in the present case is concerned. Assuming no permission has been obtained, that does not amount, that, as far as the owners are concerned, they did not let out the premises For commercial purposes.

(10) In my view, therefore, the inescapable conclusion is that the premises were not let purely for resident's] purposes and, therefore, the petition under section 14(l)(e) was not maintainable especially when the Additional Rent Controller has found that the premises, right from the inception, have been used for office purposes. II. For the aforesaid reasons, this petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.