1982 (8) TMI 221 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Timeliness of the application for leave to contest the eviction petition.
2. Interpretation of the lease agreement regarding the purpose of letting the premises.
3. Bona fide requirement of the landlord for personal use of the premises.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Timeliness of the Application for Leave to Contest:
The initial issue addressed was whether the tenant's application for leave to contest the eviction petition was filed within the prescribed time limit. The Rent Controller had held that the application was barred by time, citing a precedent that prescribed a strict 15-day limitation period. However, the court noted that the Rent Controller's office was closed from 2nd June 1980 to 29th June 1980, and the Additional Rent Controllers were only authorized to handle specific urgent matters, excluding new petitions. Consequently, the tenant's application filed on 30th June 1980, the reopening day, was deemed timely. The court applied Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which allows an act to be done on the next working day if the prescribed period expires on a holiday, to conclude that the application was within time.

2. Interpretation of the Lease Agreement:
The second issue involved the interpretation of clause 5 of the lease agreement, which stated the premises could be used "for the residence and personal use of Directors and/or their relatives and for the purposes of the Company." The Rent Controller had interpreted this clause to mean that the primary purpose was residential, and any commercial use was ancillary. The court found this interpretation debatable, noting that the clause was susceptible to the tenant's view that it allowed for broader use, including commercial purposes. The court emphasized that the written agreement was not disclosed in the eviction application, which was a significant omission. This ambiguity warranted granting the tenant leave to defend the eviction petition.

3. Bona Fide Requirement of the Landlord:
The third issue was whether the landlord genuinely required the premises for personal use. The landlord had claimed a bona fide need based on health reasons and the need for his son, who was pursuing education in Delhi, to settle there. The tenant disputed these claims, suggesting the eviction petition was filed due to a refusal to increase rent. The court noted that such claims required thorough examination and evidence. The landlord's need to shift to Delhi, both for business and health reasons, and the requirement for his son, were matters that necessitated a detailed inquiry, thus justifying the grant of leave to contest.

Conclusion:
The revision petition was accepted, and the tenant was granted leave to contest the eviction petition on two grounds:
1. Whether the premises were let for the purpose of residence only.
2. Whether the landlord bona fide required the premises for his own occupation or for any family members dependent on him.

The parties were directed to appear before the Rent Controller for further proceedings, and the tenant was to file a written statement based on these observations. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs for the current proceedings.