M.L. Jain, J.
(1) This is a review application seeking review of my order dated October Ii, 1979, made in S.A.O. 142 of 1978. I had dismissed the second appeal and directed eviction of the tenants on the ground that the premises were let for commercial purposes and the statutory tenant having died, his heirs could not claim any right of occupation of the premises in view of the amended definition of 'a tenant' in the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. By this review application, it is suggested that the order suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record so as to call for its review.
(2) Apart from the question whether a review is permissible or not under the Delhi Rent Control Act, I do not think that there is any error of any kind in the impugned judgment. The learned Rent Control Tribunal had observed as follows :
'...BEFOREI deal with the evidence certain admitted facts may benoticed. One Bhikari Lal was the tenant of these premises in 1942 who had started a Dhaba under the name and style of Uttam Bhojnalaya. Kunj Bheari Lal admittedly became sub-tenant in the second floor of the premises under him. Bhikari Lal sold his rights in the premises in favor of Roop Ram and Roop Ram started Realizing rent from Kunj Behari Lal. Thereafter Balwant Singh became the tenant and he ran Dhaba and he used to collect rent from Kunj Behari Lal. Then Balwant Singh sold the Dhaba to appellant Girdhari Lal on November 8, 1952, and the appellant also was accepted as a tenant by the landlord in respect of the whole of the premises.'
(3) In his deposition, Girdhari Lal had said as follows :
'I had taken the property in dispute on rent in the year 1952 from the father of the applicant. I had taken the property on rent for running a dhaba. On the second floor respondent No. 2 is residing there as a sub-tenant since the time when Bhikari Lal was a tenant therein. Bhikari Lal was there as a tenant in 1942-43.
(4) It is not the case of the petitioners that the premises were let for residential purposes. Their case now is that the premises were commercial-cum-residential. At no time did the review petitioners avert that the tenant and with him the present applicants, were living in the disputed premises. The landlord had come with the case initially that the premises were rented out for a commercial purpose but were being misused for a residential purpose. This contention of misuse was rejected by the controller though on the ground that no notice of misuse had been given, but that supports the fact that the premises were let out for commercial purposes and were not let out for residential purposes. There is no doubt that in his written statement before the Controller, Girdhari Lal did say that the premises were rented out for commercial-cum-residential purposes but the evidence showed to the contrary. It is only in the present review application that the applicants have stated that they were residing with the tenant Girdhari Lal and were financially dependent upon him at the time of his death, vide para 15 of the review application. Here too, they do not say that they were residing in the disputed premises. That completely knocks out the case of the petitioners. Even if one were to hold that the premises were commercial-cum-residential, then too, in view of Haji Mohammad Din and another v. Narain Doss. : AIR1979Delhi186 , and Ganpat Lodha v Shashikant Vishnu Shinde, : 3SCR198 , the heirs of a statutory tenant can claim the tenancy only if the premises are residential. This position cannot be extended to the premises which were taken for commercial purposes but were subsequently used for residential purposes. The learned counsel, however, relies upon Mohan lal v. Sri Krishan, : AIR1978Delhi92 , where a learned single Judge that 'the extension of the statutory protection is confined to residential premises and, perhaps, to residential-cum-commercial premises but does not ensure to the benefit of a tenant of a commercial premises. Obviously, the learned Judge has indicated his caution by adding the word 'perhaps'. I am firmly of the view that the benefit cannot be extended to premises which are primarily commercial but the tenant or a sub-tenant also comes to reside there. In this view of the matter, it becomes irrelevant to consider whether the present petitioners were residing with the petitioner or were financially dependent upon him or otherwise.
(5) I have discussed at length that the landlord need not establish the grounds of eviction against the heirs of the statutory tenant who are not covered by the benefit conferred by the amended definition of a tenant. I see no reason to take a view different from that which I have extensively dealt with in Smt. Gian Devi Anand v. Jiwan Kumar and others, S.A.O. 8 of 1979 decided on October Ii, 1979.
(6) The result is that I find no force in this review petition and it is hereby dismissed. There will be no order as to cost.