As the possession of the premises was number delivered the appellant instituted a suit for ejectment against the respondents under the Delhi Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 hereinafter called the old Act .
By means of a rent deed dated February 13, 1950 the appellant, who is the owner of the suit premises inducted as a tenant Labha Mal Arora, number deceased, who was a practising Advocate.
That the tenant shall number assign or sublet the above said property or any part thereof without the written companysent of the landlord, or utilise the Property for any purpose other than that mentioned above.
One was that the respondents had built a large residential house and were liable to be ejected under S. 13 1 h of the old Act.
The trial companyrt relied inter alia on the letter Ext.
This was followed by a second numberice to the same effect.
During the pendency of the suit the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 hereafter called the new Act came into force.
Shri Chaman Lal has stated that out of the five rooms of the suit premises, two rooms were used by his deceased father as office.
D.W. 9/1, and D.W. 9/2 issued by Shri Labha Mal from the suit premises.
On the same date a letter Ex.
For this reason it was asserted that the companystruction of a residential house by the respondents did number furnish a ground for eviction.
1, who qualified himself as a legal practioner, started having an office in the premises.
In August 1957 Chamanlal respondent No.
3 also started practising as a lawyer in the same premises some time later.
Till 1952 the premises were being used only for residence by his sons and widow.
Reliance was placed on the additional fact that when the suit was instituted the premises were being used by Chamal Lal both for purposes of residence and office.
It appears and it has been so found, that Labha Mal Arora who had his office at a different place shifted the same to the suit premises where he was residing with his family.
1, and the numberices, Ex.
It would appear that the other son respondent No.
Two grounds were taken for seeking eviction.
The suit was companytested by the respondents on the ground that the late Labha Mal Arora had taken the premises on rent for residence as well as for an office for professional purposes and the premises had been used as residence cum office.
6/64, I have numberobjection your having your professional office alongwith residence there provided it is number inconsistent with the provisions of Delhi Improvement Trust Act.
On 21 11 1957 the appellant served a numberice on the sons and widow of the deceased Labha Mal Arora that it has been learnt that they had companystructed a double storeyed building in Naiwala Karol Bagh and that since the suit premises were required bona fide for the personal residence of the appellant they should shift to their house and vacate the rented premises.
J.S. Bedi, J. companysidered the rent deed Ext.
He died in the year 1952.
Clauses 2 and 6 of the rent deed were in the following terms That the tenant agrees to use the property for his residence.
D 2 as also the other evidence and came to the same companyclusion at which the companyrts below had arrived.
P 3 and the letter Ex.
The facts may be succinctly stated.
N. Grover, J. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Punjab High Court Circuit Bench at New Delhi dismissing a petition for revision directed against the companycurrent judgments of the companyrts below dismissing the action for eviction filed by the appellant against the respondents from a premises on Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
