Thommen, J. - (1.) This appeal arises from the judgment of the Delhi High Court in S. A. O. No. 59 of 1979 whereby the High Court, reversing the concurrent findings of the Additional Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal, allowed the respondent landlord's application for eviction of the appellant-tenant under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the 'Act'). The respondent is the daughter of the original landlord who had let out the premises to the appellant on 1-10-1961. The present respondent purchased the property from her father on 27th June, 1964 and thus stepped into his shoes as the 'landlord' as defined under Section 2 (e) of the Act.
(2.) Relying upon the Rent Note and the appellant's letters dated 7-10-1961 and 18-8-1962 addressed to the respondent's father and the earlier proceedings between them for eviction of the appellant on the ground of sub-letting the premises for commercial purposes, both the statutory authorities found that the premises which had been let out for residential purposes to the appellant had also been used incidentally for commercial purposes so as to exclude the application of Section 14(1)(e) read with the Explanation thereto. This finding was reversed by the High Court by the impugned judgment. The High Court found that there was no evidence for the statutory authorities to come to the conclusion, which they did, as regards the premises having been used for commercial purposes. This is what the High Court says:- "....... No documentary, evidence has been brought on record to hold that the premises were ever used for boarding and lodging foreign students......Thus there is no evidence on record to hold that the premises were used for boarding and lodging of the foreign students or that the premises were let to the respondent for commercial purposes. Thus I am of the view that the premises were let to the respondent for use as residence and the findings to contrary by the Controller and the Tribunal are without any evidence on record and are perverse." This finding of the High Court is, in our view, unsustainable. The High Court was not justified in saying that there was no evidence to hold that the premises were used for boarding and lodging foreign students. The specific plea of the landlord in the earlier proceedings was that the tenant had sub-let the premises for commercial purposes. The tenant contended that she had never parted with her exclusive possession of any part of the premises and the foreign students who were lodging with her were her paying guests and were not her tenants. The plea of subtenancy raised by the landlord was thus rejected on the ground that those who lodged with her were not sub-tenants but only paying guests. Letters dated 7-10-1961 and 18-8-1962 addressed by the appellant-tenant to the respondent-landlord were considered by the authorities in coming to the conclusion, which they did. These letters clearly disclosed the fact that foreign students were lodged in the premises as the guests of the appellant. The evidence let in by the appellant and not contradicted by the respondent clearly showed that apart from the appellant, all the other inmates of the premises were foreign students staying with her as her paying guests. The appellant testified to the effect that she earned her livelihood from the income she received as lodging fee from students who lodged with her. It was out of that income that all her personal expenses including the rent payable by her for the premises had been met. These are the findings of the two fact-finding authorities and those findings are based on oral and documentary evidence. To have reversed those findings by the High Court in Second Appeal on the ground that they were perverse was totally uncalled for.
(3.) Mr. Harish Salve appearing for the respondent-landlord subm.its that even if the High Court was wrong in coming to the conclusion that there was no evidence about foreign students being lodged by the tenant, the mere fact that foreign students stayed as paying guests in the premises did not imply either that they lodged with the consent of the landlord or that such lodging amounted to a commercial use of the building. Counsel submits that the High Court was right on the facts of this case in saying that the ground contained in clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 14 was attracted.;