LexDR. GOPAL DASS VERMA versus DR. S. K. BHARDWAJ AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
678 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1962] '96' committee cannot enforce any of the provisions of the Gulam -;;;;;.ammad Act or the rules or the bye-laws framed by it and v. cannot issue licences till the market is properly estab- State of Bombay lished in law. We therefore allow the petition partly and direct Wanchoo .f. the respondents not to enforce any of the provisions . of the Act, the rules and the bye-laws against the petitioners with respect to the market till a market is properly established in law for this area under s. 5AA and not to levy any fees under s. 11 till the maximum is prescribed under the Rules. In the circumstances we order parties to bear their own costs. May 2. Petition allowed in part. DR. GOPAL DASS VERMA v. DR. S. K. BHARDWAJ AND ANOTHER (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO and K. c. DAS GUPTA, JJ.) Tenancy-Created or used both for residential and professional purposes-Termination of-Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, r952 (Act X KXV III of r952), ss. 2(g), IJ(r)(e), r3(r)(h). The respondent as a tenant of the appellant was occupying a portion of the premises in question for residence and the other major portion for his professional work as an ear, nose, throat specialist. The appellant sued for the ejectment of the respon- dent on the grounds that (i) he required the premises for his own residence and that (ii) the respondent had built a suitable residence for himself in another locality. The first plea was based on the ground mentioned in s. 13(1)(e) and the second plea on s. r3(r)(h) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952. The trial court decreed the suit but the appellate court and the High Court dismissed it on the finding that from the beginning of the tenancy a substantial part of the premises was used by the respondent for bis professional work obviously with the consent of the appellant. Held, that premises let for residential purposes but used by 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 679 the te~ant with the consent of the landlord incidentally for com- z96z mercial, professional or other purp~ses cease to be premises let for a residential purpose alone and as such the landlord would Dr. Gopal Dass not be entitled to eject the tenant under s. r3(r)(e) of the Act. Verma Nor can such a tenant be ejected independently under s. r3(r)(h) v. because a tenancy created or used both for residence and pro- Dr. S. K. fession cannot be terminated merely by showing that the tenant Bhardwaj had acquired a suitable residence. Premises let both for residence and commercial purposes do not cease to be premises under s. 2(g) and continue to be so under the last clause of s. 2(g). CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 278 of 1959. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 2, 1957, of the Punjab High Court, in Civil Revision No. 239 of 1956. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the appellant. S. T. Desai and Naunit Lal, for the respondents. 1961. May 2. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.-The appellant Dr. Gopal Gajendragaikar ]. Das Varma owns a double-storeyed house known as 28, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. 'rhe ground floor of this house consists of a block of offices and the first floor consists of four flats; th rno of these are in the occupation of the appellant while the fourth has been let out to respondent 1, Dr. Bhardwaj. Dr. Bhardwaj is an ear, nose, throat specialist, and in one of the four rooms of the flat he and his wife, respondent 2, reside, while the three other rooms are used by him for the purpose of his profession. Respondent 1 ap- pears to have taken the premises on lease as early as 1934 although he executed an agreement of tenancy in fa\'our 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. 90 per month payable in advance. The tenancy was to commence from October 1, 1935, and was intended t.o continue up to September 30, 1936. Parties agreed that the said 680 SUPREME COUH,T REPORTS [1.962] r96r tenancy could be renewed on terms to be settled D G --; D later. In fact the tenancy has been renewed from '· ·;;;ma ass year to year and the flat is still in possession of res- v. pondent 1. Dr. s. K. In October 1953 the appellant sued the two respon- Bhardwaj dents for ejectment on two grounds. He
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.