Residential accommodation under rent control is judged by suitability in context, not by the label of mixed use.

Premises let for mixed commercial and residential use may still qualify as "residential accommodation" under Section 14A of the Delhi Rent Control Act if they are reasonably suitable for residential occupation in context. The text explains that the provision creates a special right for a government allottee required to vacate official residence and who owns residential accommodation in Delhi, enabling summary recovery under Section 25B. Leave to defend is available only where the tenant's affidavit sets out facts that would legally disentitle the landlord from eviction. The landlord's application under Section 14A is treated as carrying an implied assertion of bona fide personal occupation, and the scheme also guards against re-letting or non-occupation after eviction.

---

---

Issues: Whether premises let partly for commercial use and partly for residence can be treated as "residential accommodation" so as to attract Section 14A of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, and whether the tenant was entitled to leave to defend under the special procedure in Section 25B.

Analysis: Section 14A was construed as creating a special right in favour of a government allottee who is required to vacate official residential accommodation and who owns residential accommodation in Delhi, enabling immediate recovery of premises let out by him. The expression "residential accommodation" was held to be wider than a lease for residential purpose and was interpreted contextually and purposively, having regard to the scheme of Sections 14A and 25B. The decisive test was residential suitability, not the formal description of the letting or the existence of some commercial use. The Court also held that leave to contest under Section 25B can be granted only where the tenant's affidavit discloses facts that would disentitle the landlord from obtaining eviction, and that the landlord's application under Section 14A carries an implied representation that the premises are sought for his own occupation after the government order to vacate. The statutory scheme was further read as preventing re-letting or non-occupation after eviction as an abuse of the court's process.

Conclusion: The premises were held to fall within the ambit of "residential accommodation" and the tenant failed to show facts disentitling the landlord from eviction. The appeal was therefore dismissed in favour of the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi: For the purposes of Section 14A, a building is "residential accommodation" if it is reasonably suitable for residential use in context, and a tenant can resist the special summary eviction procedure only by disclosing facts that legally disentitle the landlord from recovering possession.

---