The appellate Court held that on the facts proved in the case it cannot be inferred that the premises in suit were built for residential purposes alone, and that evidence did number show that the premises in question had been lot to respondent 1 for residence alone.
Parties agreed that the said tenancy companyld be renewed on terms to be settled later.
The first plea was made under s. 13 1 e of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 Act XXXVIII of 1952 hereafter called the Act , while the second was raised by reference to s. 13 1 h of the Act.
In fact the tenancy has been renewed from year to year and the flat is still in possession of respondent 1.
The appellate judge examined the companyduct of the parties and held that it was proved beyond any shadow of doubt that respondent 1 was using the premises both for his residence and his professional work since the inception of the tenancy without any objection on behalf of the appellant, and so in his opinion the premises companyld number be said to have been let for residence alone.
T. Desai and Naunit Lal, for the respondents.
Even so, as a result of his companyclusion under s. 13 1 h the trial judge passed a decree for ejectment in favour of the appellant.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 2, 1957, of the Punjab High Court, in Civil Revision No.
Respondent 1 admitted that he was a tenant under the appellant.
In the result the appeal preferred by the respondents was allowed and the decree for ejectment passed by the.
The claim thus made by the appellant was denied by the respondents.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India, S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the appellant.
He, however, companytended that the appellant did number require the premises bona fide for his personal use, and he urged that he was using the premises for carrying on his medical profession and as such the appellant was number entitled to eject him.
He also found that under the proviso to s. 13 1 e it cannot be said that the premises were used incidentally for profession without the companysent of the appellant in that view s. 13 1 e did number apply to the case.
90 per month payable in advance.
On the question about the bona fide requirements of personal residence pleaded by the appellant under s. 13 1 e the trial companyrt made a finding against him.
278 of 1959.
Respondent 2 pleaded that she was number the tenant of the appellant and she alleged that it was she and number respondent 1 who had built the house in Golf Link Area.
The trial judge also held that it was respondent 1 who had built a house in Golf Link Area and since the said house was suitable for his residence the requirements of s. 13 1 h were satisfied.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. The appellant Dr. Gopal Das Varma owns a double storeyed house known as 28, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Since the appellant had failed to prove that the premises were residential premises within the meaning of s. 13 1 e and h the appellate Court held that respondent 1 companyld number be ejected.
He supported his wife in her plea that the house built in Golf Link Area belonged to her and number to him.
pears to have taken the premises on lease as early as 1934 although he executed an agreement of tenancy in favour of the appellant on November 8, 1935.
This agreement shows that the appellant agreed to let out his flat to respondent 1 on a rent of Rs.
May 2.
239 of 1956.
Dr. Bhardwaj is an ear, numbere, throat specialist, and in one of the four rooms of the flat be and his wife, respondent 2, reside, while the, three other rooms are used by him for the purpose of his profession.
The ground floor of this house companysists of a block of offices and the first floor companysists of four flats three of these are in the occupation of the appellant while the fourth has been let out to respondent 1, Dr. Bhardwaj.
Respondent 1 ap.
According to the appellant, since both the requirements of the Act were satisfied he was entitled to obtain a decree for ejectment against the respondents.
In October 1953 the appellant sued the two respondents for ejectment on two grounds.
Both the respondents challenged this decree by preferring an appeal before the Senior Sub Judge at Delhi.
The tenancy was to companymence from October 1, 1935, and was intended to companytinue up to September 30, 1936.
He alleged that he required the premises in question for occupation as residence for himself and for the members of his family and that respondent 1 had recently built a suitable residence for himself in Golf Link Area, New Delhi.
