JUDGMENT
S.B. Wad, J.
(1) This is the tenant’s revision petition against the order of the Additional Rent Controller, directing his eviction under section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. It was alleged by the tenant that the premises were taken for the purposes of residence as well as business. It was also contended that the requirement of the landlords was not bonafide.
(2) At the time of arguments, it was agreed between the parties that the tenancy was created by a lease deed dated 22-3-68. This document was produced in the Trial Court but was not exhibited. I permitted the petitioner to pay the additional stamp duty & penalty and he has exhibited the lease deed as Exhibit C-1.
(3) As regards the nature of tenancy, two clauses in the lease deed are crucial, Clause 12 and Clause 16. Clause 12 reads, “that the lessee shall use the premises for the purpose of his residence only” and Clause 16 reads as, “That the lessee agrees to pay Rs. 100.00 as advance per month as extra charges which may be incurred from Land & Development Office for the use of Barsati accommodation as office. This advance shall be only applicable as from the date Barsati is used as an office, notice about which shall be given by the Lessee to the Lesser in writing. This sum is adjustable towards the extra taxes paid, and if the taxes are less than the same shall be refunded to the Lessee. If any additional part of the accommodation is utilized for office purposes, the Lessee shall be liable for additional charges on the above terms.” It is clear from these two clauses that the primary purpose of letting out the premises was residence. The tenant could, however, use the Barsati and any additional part of the accommodation for office purposes on giving prior notice to the Lesser in writing. The additional amounts payable where for the payment to the Land & Development Office and additional taxes. It is admitted that no such notice in writing for use of accommodation for office purposes was given by the tenant to the landlord. The evidence of the tenant shows that the Barsati was used for office premises for some period. It is further admitted by the tenant that he had shifted bids office from the Barsati to elsewhere on 1-10-76. Notice to quit was given to him by the landlords in February, 1977 and in March 1977 the eviction petition was filed. It is thus clear that at the time of the filing of the eviction petition no part of the premises were being used by the tenant for commercial purposes. The tenant has unsuccessfully tried to assert that he started reusing the part of the premises for commercial purposes from 1979 again. There is no evidence on record besides his own statement.
(4) The next contention of the tenant is that Shri Ram Lubhaya for whose bonafide requirement the premises were originally required has now shifted to the ground floor of the property in question, and that the eviction cannot now be sought fur residential requirements of Madan Lal, the brother of Ram Lubhaya. This argument is misconceived. The house in question is in the ownership of Ram Lubhaya, Ram Parkash and Madan Lal. The notice given to the tenant on 8-2-77- as well as the eviction petition mention the requirements of all the co-owners. Madan Lal was also staying in the rented premises like Ram Lubhaya at the time of the filing of the petition. Ram Lubhaya has now occupied the ground floor and the requirement of Madan Lal and Ram Parkash is, of course, the first floor and Barsali. Madan Lal was staying at Shakti Nagar in tenanted flat and considering the number of his family members and his status the learned Rent Controller has found that the requirement of Ram Parkash and Madan Lal are bonafide. This is a question of fact and no perversity is shown so as to warrant any interference with the finding of fact of the Rent Controller.
(5) During the pendency of the civil revision, the landlord has filed an application being C.M. 3809/85, slating that the tenant has acquired two houses being No C-25, Nizammuddin West, New Delhi, and No. 67, Farm House, Sainik Farm, Khanpur, near Saket, New Delhi with vacant possession. It was, therefore, prayed that the decree for eviction should be passed on the ground of Section 14(1)(h) also. The acquisition of the said two houses has not been denied by the tenant. They are such that even the commercial business can be carried out from the said two houses. This fact is also not denied by the tenant. The Court can mould the relief appropriately considering the change in the fads during the course of the pendency of the litigation.
(6) I, therefore, pass a decree for eviction against the petition under section 14(1)(h) in addition to Section 14(1)(e). The civil revision is dismissed. The tenant should vacate the suit premises on or before 10th August, 1986