Kumar Apparels Accessories ... vs Shri Prem Ranjan
1998 Latest Caselaw 1084 Del

ORDER

C.M. Nayar, J.

1. The present petition is directed against the judgment dated September 20, 1997 passed by Mrs.Anu Malhotra, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. The eviction petition of the respondent was allowed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act and the petitioner was granted time to vacate the premises for a period of six months. The premises were let out to the petitioner company by virtue of lease-deed executed on June 28, 1985. The elevant portion of the lease-deed would indicate that the premises were let out for residential purposes for the residence of Shri Vivek Kumar. The relevant clause which starts from page 1 reads as follows:

"That in consideration of the rent hereinafter reserve and the covenants on the parts of the lessee hereinafter contained the lessor hereby agrees to let to the lessee for residential purposes of Shri Vivek Kumar the premises described above (hereinafter called the premises)."

Similarly, it is stated in paragraph 16 as follows:

"That the tenant shall use the premises for residential purposes only and shall not sub-let without prior consent of the `Lessor'."

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the premises were in fact occupied and used by a partnership concern M/s Arti Embroidery of which admittedly Vivek Kumar was also the partner. The lease-deed was never acted upon between the parties and the premises were used for a composite tenancy of residential and commercial purposes. Therefore, it is argued that no order of eviction can be passed under the provisions of Section 14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act. The learned Additional Rent Controller assessed the material on record and carefully analysed the pleas as raised in the application for leave to defend. The plea taken by the petitioner that there exists no privity of contract between the petitioner and the respondent was not accepted and no triable issues arose for consideration. Though it was admitted that Agreement dated 28th June, 1985 was executed between the parties yet the peitioner company was not functioning since the date of incorporation and Vivek Kumar had requested the respondent/landlord to let out the tenanted premises in the name of M/s Arti Embroidery which is also a partnership firm and the above said Vivek Kumar is one of the partners of the said firm. The contention that the premises were let out to M/s Arti Embroidery for residential-cum-commercial purposes and were being used as such since the inception of the tenancy as the said concern had a registered office at the tenanted premises was rejected. The learned Additional Rent Controller referred to the photo copy of the perpetual lease-deed executed between the President of India and the respondent in relation to residential flat which is the subject matter of the present proceedings to indicate that the respondent was the landlord of the tenanted premises and it was apparent that the plea of the petitioner that the respondent was not the landlord/owner of the premises was merely taken to proract the litigation. Further-more, it was clearly and categorically held on the basis of material placed on record that Vivek Kumar who was also the partner of M/s Arti Embroidery all along had been residing with his family members in the tenanted premises and the terms as contained in the perpetual lease-deed executed between L&DO and the respondent would show that as tenanted premises were situated on a residential plot and that the respondent could not without the written consent of the lessor, L&DO permit the user of the said property so constructed for any purpose other than that for residence. The necessary finding in this regard has been arrived at by the Additional Rent Controller in the following manner:

"It is brought forth through the perpetual lease deed executed between L&DO, and the petitioner that the tenanted premises were situated on a residential plot and not a residential colony and that the petitioner could not without the written consent of the lessor L&DO, permit the user of the said property so constructed for any purpose other than that of private. It is not denied through affidavit of the director of the respondent company that he was and is in occupation of the said premises since 1.7.1983 and is residing in the same alongwith his wife and children. Though undoubtedly it has been submitted that M/s Arti Embroidery had a registered office registered with the Registrar of Firm at the tenanted premises which has colly. that the M/s Arti Embroidery had its factory at Okhla Industrial Area. The exact nature of commercial activity conducted by M/s Arti Embroidery alleging in the tenanted premises has not been deliberately described in the affidavit put forth on behalf of the respondent company."

3. Next, it was noticed that a factory of M/s Arti Embroidery was registered with the Registrar of Firms at the tenanted premises which would not suffice that the premises were used for the composite purpose as the leasedeed dated 28th June, 1985 clearly specified the same as residential premises. M/s Arti Embroidery also had its works at B-82, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-20. The petitioner company has obviously taken dishonest pleas to stay in the accommodation which were not even substantiated by any material to show that there was a desire or even an indication on the part of the respondent/landlord's permission to use the premises for residential-cum-commercial purposes. The exact nature of commercial activity as conducted by M/s Aarti Embroidery as alleged in the tenanted premises was held not to be deliberately described in the affidavit put forward on behalf of the said company.

4. No other point has been argued. The pleas raised before the Additional Rent Controller as well as before this Court are clearly misconceived and do not require any consideration in exercise of revisional powers of this Court. The petition, as a consequence, is dismissed in limine. There will be no order as to costs.