- (1.) In these proceedings the question that arises for decision is the true meaning of the expression "purely residential premises" occurring in section 9(1)(e) of the Delhi and Ajmer-Merwara Rent Control Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Act.
(2.) Mr. Bishan Narain learned counsel for the plaintiff-landlords, contends that the true test in deciding whether the demised premises are "purely residential premises" within section 9(1)(e) of the Act is the nature of the premises and not the conditions of the tenancy or the actual use made of them. In this connection Mr. Bishan Narain cites clauses (d) and (g) of Section 9(1) of the Act. In order to bring a case within clauses (d) and (g) that the premises were let to the tenant for use as a residence. This it is contended is not the requirement of law in section 9(1) (e) of the Act. Indeed it is maintained that premises built for use as a residence are "purely residential premises" within section 9(1) (e) of the Act notwithstanding that the tenant does change the user of the premises and creates a shop out of what was built as "purely residential premises."
(3.) In Civil Revision No 135 of 1950, decided on the 12th of September, 1950, it was said that when it is found that the premises in possession of a tenant are being used for non-residential purpose it is for the plaintiff-landlord to prove that that is not in accord with the original terms of the tenancy. In other words, it was held that the purpose of letting is the essential factor and the user of the premises by the tenant is admissible to shows. Subject to rebuttal, that the premises are or are not purely residential premises" within section 9(1) (e) of the Act. In that case the contention set out in the preceding paragraph was neither raised nor considered.;