SHANTI PERSHAD NARINDER KUMAR Vs. PARAS RAM NAND RAI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, a partnership firm, applied under section 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act claiming a right to be in possession of the premises in the following circumstances.

(2.) The first respondent in this appeal, Messrs. Parasram Harnand Rai had executed a lease-deed (Exhibit DH/3) on 1st Aug., 1942 with reference to the suit premises, which is only a portion of the first floor, for three years. The lease was granted for the purpose of carrying on the business of the second respondent known as Messrs Reikhchand Gopaldass. The first respondent filed a suit (No. 340 of 1948) for eviction against the second respondent as well as the. Lakshmi Bank Limited (which subsequently went into liquidation) Exhibit O. W. 3/1 is the plaint in that suit. The, plaint proceeded on the footing that the Lakshmi Bank as well as Messrs. Reikhchand Gopaldass (the second respondent) were the tenants of the premises (three sets of rooms on the first floor) and sought eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent and the property having been put to residential use as well despite the property having been taken on lease for the carrying on of business alone. It may also be noticed that the tenants were said to be in arrears of rent calculating at the rate of Rs. 165.00 per month ( Rs. 55.00 for each set of rooms) plus 15 per cent increase, making in all a sum of Rs. 247.50 Paise per month in addition to house tax.

(3.) The suit was resisted on the ground that the tenancy was for the purpose of not only carrying on the business of banking but also for its officers to reside therein. The monthly rent was said to be Rs. 115.00, exclusive of house tax. It may be noticed even at the outset that, it was specially mentioned in the written statement that the lease had been taken for the purpose of carrying on the business of Lakshmi Bank and residence of its officers.