Behari Lal vs Kundan Lal
1986 Latest Caselaw 436 Del

JUDGMENT

S. Ranganathan, J.

(1) The appellant is the landlord of a house No. G-1-A, Kalkaji. Since 1962, a single room therein was let out by the landlord to the respondent at a rent of Rs. 45.00 p.m. The landlord filed a petition for the eviction of the respondent from the premises on the ground that the tenant, contrary to the terms of the lease of the property to the landlord, was using the premises for commercial purposes. He pointed out that the Land and Development Office (L&DO) had objected to this misuse and given a notice to the landlord on 21-5-1973 to discontinue the wrongful user. The Additional Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the respondent if the misuse of the premises was not put to an end within thirty days from the date of the order. He was of opinion that since the L&DO was not willing to condone the misuse of the premises, the tenant could not be permitted to continue in the premises availing himself of the benefit to Section 14(11) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2) The tenant filed an appeal to the Rent Control Tribunal. The Rent Control Tribunal issued notice to the L&DO. The L&DO filed a reply and stated that it was willing to accept penalties for condoning the breaches as a temporary measure. The amounts of penalties payable for the tenant's misuse were also mentioned by the L&DO. Accepting these figures the Rent Control Tribunal partly allowed the appeal and modified the impugned order of eviction by directing that the appellant should either stop the misuse of the property within one month from the date of the order or should deposit or pay to the landlord the amounts specified by the L&DO (a proportion thereof as mentioned in the order and not the whole amount) and should also continue to pay or deposit penalties and damages that may be imposed by the L&DO for condoning the breaches in the future in the same proportion as mentioned above. He, however, made it clear that in case the L&DO at some stage was not prepared to condone the farther misuse and fixed some target date for stopping the misuse finally then the appellant should stop the misuse by that date. The Rent Control Tribunal directed that in case the appellant failed to pay the amounts mentioned above or to be imposed in future or failed to stop the misuser, as the case may be, within the time prescribed, the order of eviction will stand revived against him. This order of the Rent Control Tribunal was passed on 10th August, 1978.

(3) The landlord has preferred this appeal. The question at issue has been considered in two judgments of this Court which have been brought to my notice. In Prem Saroop Chopra v. S.N Bhatia (1985 Rlr 212) Avadh Behari, J. held that where the Dda takes the stand that misuse must be removed then the Controller is justified in ordering the removal or else eviction. That was a case where the demised premises was being used for a commercial purpose, namely, the running of a private school and the Dda had stated before the Rent Controller that it was keenly interested in putting an end to the non-conforming use and that payment of misuse charges for condensation of breaches in the past should not be treated as conferring any right on the lessee or affecting the rights of the Lesser to determine the lease and re-enter the premises if the misuse continued. In those circumstances, the learned Judge held that the tenant should be directed to stop misuse of the premises within a short time or else would be liable to eviction.

(4) The second case referred to before me is also a decision of Justice Avadh Behari. It is reported as Daljit Singh Madan v. Surinder Kumar etc. (25 1984 Dlt 313). In this case, again, the demised premises was being used for commercial purposes contrary to the terms of the superior lease. After discussing the object of Section 14(1)(k) and the provisions of Section 14(11) of the Act, the learned Judge summarised his conclusions in paragraph 31 onwards of the judgment. He pointed out that in response to the summons of the Controller the L&DO stated that for the past he was willing to condone the breach on payment of misuse charges but as regards the future misuse must be stopped. The learned Judge held that if commercial use was not permitted in the future by the L&DO it would be beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hold that in spite of the opposition of the L&DO he will allow the tenant to continue to use the property for commercial purposes on payment of charges.

(5) In the present case the Rent Control Tribunal had issued notice to the L&DO and the L&DO had stated that it was prepared to condone the breaches on accepting penalties. No doubt it was stated that this was being accepted as a temporary measure but the L&DO does not appear to have taken the stand before the Kent Controller or the Rent Control Tribunal that it was interested in having the misuse put to an end or that the condensation and the penalties accepted by it were only in respect of the past. In other words, the finding of the Rent Control Tribunal is that in this case the L&DO was prepared to condone the breaches provided the specified amount of penalties was paid by the landlord. It was in view of this that the Rent Control Tribunal partly allowed the appeal of the tenant and directed that he could continue in the premises so long as the L&DO was prepared to accept the misuse charges but that in the event of the L&DO deciding that the misuse will not bs any longer tolerated and that it should be put an end to, the eviction order would start operating. In this state of affairs and in view of Section 14(11) of the Act it appears that the order passed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal was the correct order to pass. This view is also supported by the decision of the Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank v. Arjun Dev Arora and others of the judgment deals with the point at issue which is as follows : "Reliance had been placed on a decision of the Delhi High Court in Daljit Singh Madan v. Surinder Kumar, where a similar question arose for consideration. The lease was for residential use but the same had been put to commercial use. The court held that it was open to the Controller to fix the penalty for wrongful user and as long as the penalty continued to be paid the deviation of user could be permitted. We see no reason to take a different view. We, therefore, direct the Controller to fix the quantum of penalty after hearing counsel for parties and the Delhi Development Authority. When such penalty is quantified, the same would also be a liability which the appellant is to meet. Parties are directed to bear their own costs."

It will be seen from the above that the decision of this Court in Daljit Singh Madan's case has been interpreted as permitting the Controller to continue the occupation of the premises by the tenant so long as penalty is continued to be paid for the deviation in user. Of course, this course can be adopted only so long as the L& Do or Dda, as the case may be, is willing to permit and condone the breaches or the misuser. In view of the above situation and the facts of the present case, I am of opinion that the direction given by the Rent Control Tribunal was the correct one. The order of the Rent Control Tribunal is therefore confirmed and this appeal stands dismissed. No costs.