P. K. Bahri, J. ( 1 ). Ranjit Singh (since deceased) had filed this appeal against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated November 18, 1986, by which his appeal against the order of eviction from the premises in question passed by the Additional Rent Controller on the grounds of eviction covered by clauses (d) and (h) of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act was dismissed. ( 2 ). During the pendency of this appeal Ranjit Singh tenant as well as Shri B. S. Sethi landlord-respondent bad died and their legal representatives have been brought on record. The ground of non-payment of rent was negatived by the Additional Rent Controller and no longer survives for decision in this appeal. ( 3 ). Facts in brief are that Ranjit Singh a displaced person having come over to Delhi alongwith his family members soon after partition of the country and a driver by profession bad ground floor of house No. XVI/356 Faiz Road, Delhi in September 1947 (copy of which is Ex. AWI/2) pertains to residential premises only. Admittedly Ranjit Singh had five sons and a wife and all of them started living in that one room accommodation. It has come in evidence that in room a wooden partition was put and some portion of that room was used as a kitchen and also some portion as bath room. ( 4 ). In order to succeed in respect of two grounds of eviction upheld by the lower authorities the first ingredient to be proved was whether the premises in occupation of Ranjit Singh had been let out for residential purposes. The finding of tact has been arrived at by the two tribunals below on appreciating the evidence and normally speaking such a finding of fact is not open to challenge in the second appeal. Still as some half-hearted contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in challenging the said findings so I have gone through the evidence led before the Additional Rent Controller and has not hesitation in affiming the said findings of fact of the two tribunals. ( 5 ). Still as some half-hearted contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in challenging the said findings so I have gone through the evidence led before the Additional Rent Controller and has not hesitation in affiming the said findings of fact of the two tribunals. ( 5 ). Apart from the fact that the survey report prepared by the Custodian Department which shows that only one room was occupied by Ranjit Singh for residential premises there are documents executed by Ranjit Singh himself which also show unmistakably that the letting purpose of the premises in question could not have been other than residential alone. The municipal record produced in the case (copies of which are Ex. AW9/1 to AW9/4) pertaining to year 1963 also indicate that Ranjit Singh was occupying a residential room. ( 6 ). There had appeared certain differences between the tenant and the landlord with regard to the rate of rent which was settled by two of them executing two documents Ex. AW4/1 and AW4/2. Surprisingly during the evidence being led by the landlord suggestions were given in cross-examination not only to the landlord but also to his withnesses that these two documents were neither signed nor thumb impressed by the tenant but ultimately the tenant s son Public Witness 9 Amrik Singh had to admit the execution of these documents by his father Ranjit Singh was very much alive at the time the evidence was being led before the Controller, still Ranjit Singh did not dare to appear in witness box. His son took a plea not supported by any documentary evidence that his father was ailing and was not in a position to appear in the witness box. No doctor s certificate was produced to show that Ranjit Singh at the relevant time was not medically fit to appear in court and give the statement. ( 7 ). It must be strongly emphasized that parties litigating in rent control proceedings have no gumption in taking false pleas as denying the execution of documents which ultimately stand proved after evidence is led by the parties. ( 7 ). It must be strongly emphasized that parties litigating in rent control proceedings have no gumption in taking false pleas as denying the execution of documents which ultimately stand proved after evidence is led by the parties. In the present case a categorical suggestion was given to the landlord in cross-examination and also to his witness who bad brought about the settlement between the parties with regard to the rate of rent that in fact these two documents were not signed and thumb impressed by Ranjit Singh. It is not understood on what basis the learned counsel who appeard for Ranjit Singh before the Additional Rent Controller had given such suggestions when ultimately Ranjit s son admilted execution of these documents. It is high time that counsel appearing for the litigants dissuade their clients from taking patently false stands and pleas in such litigation. Another documents execution of which was admitted as Ex. AW4/3. These documents do show that the rent was agreed to be Rs. 20. 00 per month and the landlord assured that he would not forcibly evict the tenant and he would seek eviction of the tenant on legal grounds and would not seek eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement. In these documents there is no mention that this particular room was being used or was let out for any composite purposes. Keeping in view the large number of family members of the tenant living in this room it was totally impossible for the tenant to have used this particular room for any commercial activity. ( 8 ). Even in evidence the witnesses examined by the tenant at no point of time stated that any commercial activity was carried on by the tenant on his family members in the room in question. They all deposed that in fact tenant and his family members have been continuously residing in the said room. ( 9 ). It is also to be emphasized that in the written statement the tenant apart from taking a bald and bare plea that the premises in question bad been let out for residential and commercial purposes bad not at all given any details of any commercial activity being carried in the room in question by the tenant or his family members. It is also to be emphasized that in the written statement the tenant apart from taking a bald and bare plea that the premises in question bad been let out for residential and commercial purposes bad not at all given any details of any commercial activity being carried in the room in question by the tenant or his family members. It is indeed not disputed that a domestic electric connection stands installed in the name of the tenant in respect of this room. Even tenant s son did not clarify as to what sort of commercial activity was being carried on in the room in question. He stated that some transport business was being carried on and there exist some documents which show this fact but the tenant has tailed to produce those documents on the record. In view of the above discussion, I conclude that the finding of fact given by the two tribunals below that the premises had been let out only for residential purpose is correct which I hereby affirm. ( 10 ). Before the Controller a. plea was taken that one common latrine was also part of the demised premises but that plea was negatived and has no longer been pressed before me. ( 11 ). Now coming to the ground of eviction of tenant having built/acquired vacant possession of another residence it must be noted at the outset that in para 18 (a) (2) and annexure A attached to the eviction petition the landlord bad categorically pleaded that the respondent has built and acquired vacant possession of a residential premises bearing No. B-57 Fateh Nagar, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi. In the written statement the only plea taken by the tenan was that he had not built or acquired vacant possession of a residential house. He nowhere pleaded that in fact he had built house No. B- 57, Fateh nagar, Tilak nagar New Delhi but it was a commercial properly. However in evidence the tenant made futile efforts to prove that in fact he bad constructed a commercial property. ( 12 ). The tenant was relying on a valuation report prepared by his own valuer namely one Mr. Bhatia RW6/1 proved through the testimony of the son of the valuer as the valuer had died to show that in fact the said property is commercial because the valuer assessed the same as commercial property. ( 12 ). The tenant was relying on a valuation report prepared by his own valuer namely one Mr. Bhatia RW6/1 proved through the testimony of the son of the valuer as the valuer had died to show that in fact the said property is commercial because the valuer assessed the same as commercial property. It is mentioned by the valuer himself in this document that the property was constructed after getting sanctioned a building plan from the municipal authority vide No. 223/b/hq/75 dated June 241975. The tenant for the reason best known to him has not cared to produce on record the said sanctioned plan of teh said building which would have clearly shown as to whether the building plan had been sanctioned for a commercial building or a residential building. The best evidence which was available with the tenant had been suppressed from the tribunals. So an adverse inference has been rightly drawn by the tribunals below that if the said sanctioned plan had been produced on record the same would have shown that the new building built by the tenant was residential in nature. This self-serving report of the valuer engaged by the tenant has been rightly disbelieved by the two tribunals. ( 13 ). Amrik Singh RW9 has admitted that the said new house has been also assessed as residential house for income-tax purposes. There is no document proved on the record which could show that any portion of the house has been let out for commercial purposes. Public Witness 9 had given names of five persons So whom different rooms in the said house bad been allegedly let out for commercial purposes but he has not produced any document to show that any such letting had taken place. The testimony of Shiv Narain RW7 that he had taken one room for godown purposes in the said properly does not inspire confidence regarding its credibility. He has no document to show that he had taken the said godown on rent and to what particular use he has put that godown. Ex AW5/7 is the copy of the letter written by the tenant to Municipal Corporation in which he categorically sited that he was himself residing in the said house. This letter is dated December 4, 19-79. Ex AW5/7 is the copy of the letter written by the tenant to Municipal Corporation in which he categorically sited that he was himself residing in the said house. This letter is dated December 4, 19-79. So he wanted the assessment of the said house to be made as a residential house in his occupation and it was so assessed vide orders copies of which are Exs. AW5/8 and AW5/9. The said documents clearly show that on the ground floor there exist three residential rooms measuring 12 X 10 , 14 X 9 , 10 X 10 one verandah 13 X 6 kitchen, latrine and bathroom and one residential room on the first floor, two rooms and verandah in addition are shown as commercial on the ground floor. So these documents also clearly go to show that substantial accommodation is the said house in meant tor residential purpose and only some portion is being used for commercial purposes. It is evident that after getting the plan sanctioned for constructing a residential building most probably the tenant had earmarked some portion on the ground floor for commercial activity at some subsequent time. That commercial activity would be obviously in violation of the sanctioned plan. The tenant has also not cared to prove on record the electricity bills of the said house to show that any commercial power connection had been taken in the said premises. So from the evidence. led before the Additional Rent Controller as well as Tribunal, they were fully justified in returning the said finding of fact that tenant bad built/acquired a vacant residence. ( 14 ). The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that landlord has not brought on record any documentary evidence to prove that tenant had in fact built/ acquired the said building. The contention is preposterous to be raised in the face of the evidence discussed above. The tenant has not appeared in the witness box. His son RW9 appeared and admitted categorically that a plot bearing No. B-57, Fateh Nagar, Tilak Nagar was purchased,by his father and he also constructed the building. In view of this admission there was no need for the landlord to have led any evidence to show that in fact tenant has built the said building. His son RW9 appeared and admitted categorically that a plot bearing No. B-57, Fateh Nagar, Tilak Nagar was purchased,by his father and he also constructed the building. In view of this admission there was no need for the landlord to have led any evidence to show that in fact tenant has built the said building. As far as the nature of the said building is concerned the evidence discussed above could lead to one conclusion only that the said house was a residential building and the plan must have been sanctioned tor residential house. As the original building plan which is in possession of the tenant was not produced so an adverse inference has to be drawn against the tenant in this regard. This ground of eviction covered by clause (h) has been rightly upheld by the two tribunals below and I affirm the said finding. ( 15 ). In this particular matter no question of law arises for decision. It was a question of fact to be decided on appreciation of evidence and the two tribunals were conpetent enough to decide such a question of fact and that finding of fact is not vitiated by any illegal approach of the tribunals or ignoring any material evidence. ( 16 ). Now coming to the last ground of eviction covered by clause (d) the landlord was to prove that neither the tenant nor anyone of his family members have been residing in the demised premises for a period of six months continuously preceding the date of the filing of the petition. The petition-was filed on December 4, 1981. So non-occupancy of the premises was to he shown for the period from June 1981 to December 1981. ( 17 ). The landlord categorically deposed that since August 1979 onward the tenant and his family members have not been residing in the demised premises and bad shifted their residence to B-57, Fateh Nagar and this fact was concealed by the tenant not only from the landlord but also from the neighbours and it is only after some inquiries were made by the landlord that landlord came to know that tenant has built a residence and has shifted his residence to the new house. The landlord also examined two neighbours AW3 Rawail Singh and AW4 Gurdas Mal to prove these facts. The landlord also examined two neighbours AW3 Rawail Singh and AW4 Gurdas Mal to prove these facts. It is admitted by RW9 sou of the tenant that Gurdas Mal bad brought about the settlement between the landlord and the tenant with regard to the rate of rent and he is one of the attesting witnesses of the documents already referred above. The premises in question are situated in slum area and before filing the eviction petition the permission had been obtained from the Competent Authority under the Slum Area Act. The notices which were issued to the tenant were served on the tenant through his wife not at the address of the demised premises but at the address of the newly built house of the tenant. Copies of the report proved in this regard are Exs. AW10/1 and AW10/ 2. RW9 did not dispute the fact that at the time the said notices were served on the tenant through his wife she was present at the new house. He stated that one room on the first floor of the said house was being used as a guest room by the tenant and his family members off and on. ( 18 ). In case for the said relevant period of six months the premises in question had remained in occupation, the tenant could have easily produced on record the electricity bills of consumption of electricity for the relevant six months but the tenant did not bother to produce on record the electricity bills of the relevant period except for one bill Ex. RW1/3 which in) fact showed that there has been no consumption of electricity at all in the said premises. He brought on record Exs. RW1/1 andRW1/ 2 electricity bills of subsequent years. Mere fact that subsequent to the filing of the petition the landlord bad made efforts to consume electricity in the demised premises would not be of any help to the tenant to rebut the case of the landlord that for the relevant six months the premises remained unoccupied. Reliance Was being placed by the tenant on electoral rolls Exs. RW3/1 and RW3/2 but they pertained again not to the relevant year. They were of the period after 1983 and so were of no help in showing that either tenant or any of his family members bad been in occupation of the premises during the relevant six months. Reliance Was being placed by the tenant on electoral rolls Exs. RW3/1 and RW3/2 but they pertained again not to the relevant year. They were of the period after 1983 and so were of no help in showing that either tenant or any of his family members bad been in occupation of the premises during the relevant six months. It appears that at one point of time the ration card which was from the address of the demised premises of the tenant was cancelled but subsequently it was restored. The drawing of ration from aprevious ration shop is not a material fact to show that the premises in question remained in occupation of the tenant or his family members during the relevant six months. The electricity bills were the best evidence which could show that the premises had been in occupation but the bills of the relevant period have not been shown to prove this fact. The bald statement of friends of sons of the tenant namely Surinder Kumar RW5 and Shiv Narain RW7 proved to be not trustworthy and good reasons have been given for holding so by the two tribunals. I need not repeat those reasons. ( 19 ). It was a question of fact to be decided by appraising the evidence as to whether the premises had remained unoccupied for the relevant six months or not and the two authorities below have given finding of fact after appraising the evidence that the landlord has been able to prove this ground of eviction and that finding also does not appeaar to suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Hence the second appeal challenging such a finding of fact was not competent. However, I have also gone through the evidence and tor the reasons given above. I affirm the finding of fact also. ( 20 ). I, hence, find no merit in this appeal which I, hereby dismiss with costs of Rs. 3,000. 00.