P 3 and the letter Ex.
in August 1957 Chamanlal respondent number 1, who qualified himself as a legal practioner, started having an office in the premises.
3 also started practising as a lawyer in the same premises some time later.
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.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated December 8, 1964 of the Punjab High Court, Circuit Bench at Delhi in Civil Revision No.
J. S. Bedi, J. companysidered the rent deed Ext.
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.
C. Manchanda, S. K. Mehta, and K. L. Mehta, for the appellant.
Bishan Narain, I. S. Sawhney and M. R. Chhabra, for the respondents.
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.
For this reason it was asserted that the companystruction of a residential house by the respondents did number furnish a ground for eviction.
During the pendency of the suit the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 hereafter called the new Act came into force.
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 .
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
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.
92 D of 1962.
He died in the year 1952.
The trial companyrt relied inter alia on the letter Ext.
6/64, I have numberobjection your having your professional office alongwith residence there provided it is number inconsistent with the provisions of Delhi Im provement Trust Act.
The facts may be succinctly stated.
D 2 as also the other evidence and came to the same companyclusion at which the companyrts below had arrived.
1, and the numberices, Ex.
Till 1952 the premises were being used only for residence by his sons and widow.
On the same date a letter Ex.
This was followed by a second numberice to the same effect.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 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.
Two grounds were taken for seeking eviction.
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.
Clauses 2 and 6 of the rent deed were in the following terms That the tenant agrees to use the property for his residence.
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.
It would appear that the other son respondent No.
661 of 1966.
