Case: V.S. Talwar Vs. Prem Chandra Sharma

1. The landlord whose application for eviction of the tenant, respondent before us, was rejected by the High Court by reversing the order of the eviction passed by the Additional Rent Controller has come before this Court on obtaining special leave and the short point arising for consideration is as to the true meaning of a clause in the rent deed.2. The respondent was admitted into tenancy of the premises in question under a lease deed dated 5th January, 1968. Clause 12 thereofthe lessee shall use the premises for the purpose of Residential/ Personal office only and not for commercialThe landlord, appellant before us, applied to the Controller on March 14, 1972 for eviction of the respondent under Section 14(1)(e) ofthe Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (‘thefor short). The tenant obtained leave to contest and pleaded, inter alia, that the premises were let out both for residential as also office and the composite purpose of the tenancy took the premises out of the purview of residential accommodation. The Controller did not accept the defence and passed an order for eviction. Thereupon, the tenant carried a revision to the Delhi High Court and reiterated his defence that the tenancy was not for residential purpose. The High Court found that there was no infirmity in the finding about the bona fide requirement but adverting to the conclusion on the letting purposeis well known that premises may be let out for residence only, for use as an office, for use as a shop and for other commercial purpose. Once any of the latter purposes is combined with the purpose of use as residence, the premises let out for a composite purpose and for residence only.The meaning of the wordnot defined in the Act, in theDictionary is a place where business is carried on. Office is certainly not residence and a letting purpose which includes office must be understood to include a purpose other than residenceultimately concluded by(e) of Section 14(1) is available as a ground to seek eviction of tenants only, among other requirements, if the premises were let out for residence only and once the letting purpose is shown to be composite, an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e), without more, mustHigh Court rejected thesubmission that the use of the wordwas intended to convey the idea that the tenancy was not for the purpose of accommodating a place of business.

Reasoning:
8. All the provisions of the lease deed have to be read and in fact with the assistance of Counsel we have read the same more than once during the hearing. The parties to the document were anxious enough and took proper care in order to keep the user of the premises confined to residential purpose; that is why it was expressly stipulated in the lease to prohibit commercial user. Even while permitting an office to be located, equal care was taken to put the wordto convey the idea that the tenant would not be entitled to transact official business connected with his avocation. Although ordinarily an office would mean the place where official business is transacted, a personal office in contradistinction to an office simplicities or a commercial office would be a place where an outsider would not normally be admitted; commercial transactions would not take place; there would be no fixity of the location and the tenant would be entitled to use any portion of the premises as his personal office and the like. Such a place is referred to as personal office would essentially be residential and obviously while entering into the present lease deed, the parties were not trying to create a lease of premises for any other purposes as now contended by Mr. Thakur for the respondent. The High Court, therefore, went wrong in reversing the decision of the Rent Controller by merely relying upon Clause 12 of the lease deed.9. It is relevant to note the description of the premises as given in the lease deed itself. Pargraph 2 of the document described the premiseslessor hereby leases to the lessee the following described premises of the entire house built on plot No. 125, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi comprising of three bed room with two bath rooms, drawing-cum-dining room, one kitchen one front and central veranda, front and back lawn, garage, servant quarter above garage, a servant W.C. andwas no description of any existing office room and available for such use to the tenant, nor was space earmarked for any personal office out of this accommodation. As indicated above it was in the discretion of lessee to use any part as a personal office. Every lessee, or for the matter of that every person maintaining an acceptable standard of living does set apart a portion of the accommodation available to him which can answer the description of a personal office.10. Mr. Thakur placed reliance on another clause to the lease deed which read asthe lessor shall pay all the taxes of any kind whatsoever including house tax, ground rent as are of may hereinafter be assessed on the demised premises by the municipality or any other authority whatsoever, provided the premises are used for residencedo not think the terms of this clause support the stand of the lessee. Asunder the Transfer of Property Act a document lease normally provides the rights and obligations of both the lessor and lessee. In stipulating the rent payable for the use and occupation of the premises the lessor had undertaken the liability of payment of taxes as described therein as long as the premises were used for residence only. This clause necessarily means that what had been stipulated was only residential user. It is appropriate to take note of the admission of Mr. Thakur that the lessor had been paying the taxes and the lessee has not been called upon to share the burden. This clause is an added provision to clinch the point in dispute against the tenant.