Lata Mehta vs M/S. Machine Tools (India) Ltd.
1999 Latest Caselaw 1109 Del

ORDER

Vijender Jain, J.

1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the rent controller, the landlord has preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.

2. The eviction petition was filed in the year 1980. It took sixteen years for the proceedings to culminate before the Rent Controller when the impugned order was passed on Ist February, 1996. Mr. Gupta learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the lease was in relation to one property D-262 defense Colony. However, the lease was created of the main building pursuant to Ex. R-1 and of the portion of the garrage by R-2 on the same date i.e. 8th January, 1974. The Rent Controller agreeing with the requirement of the petitioner held as there two separate distinct tenancies and whereas in Ex. R-1 for the purposes of main building, the purpose of letting was residential and it was not so mentioned in Ex. R.2 in relation to garrage and servant quarters, the omission of the word 'residential' would constitute or would imply that the property was let out for composite purpose.

3. Mr. Gupta has contended that Rent Controller ought to have taken into consideration the nature of property, the purpose for which the property was constructed, the sanctioned plan of the property. He has also argued that according to the Master Plan the area was residential and the main building having been let out for residential purposes, the finding of the Rent Controller on the basis of word residential missing form Ex. R-2 was contrary to law.

4. Mr. Andley, on the other hand, has stoutly defended the order passed by the Rent Controller. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that this property was leased to the respondent from Ist January, 1974 whereas Zonal Development Plan came into force w.e.f. May, 1974 and, therefore, in the absence of Zonal Development Plan being operative in relation to the locality concerned, the land lord can not seek eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act taking the aid of Master Plan. Mr. Andley has further contended that right from the inception of the tenancy to the knowledge of the petitioner the property was used for non-residential purposes. He has further contended that as a matter of fact knowingly and consciencely word 'residential' were omitted from Ex. R-2 and now the petitioner can not claim that the property could not be used in pursuant to Master Plan.

5. Mr. Andley has further contended that no notice of misuser was ever given by the petitioner to the respondent. I have given my careful considerations to arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties.

6. At the outset, I must deal with the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respondent with regard to the enforceability of the Master Plan. Rent Controller also fell in the same error. The lands in Delhi are to be developed and governed according to Master Plan. Master Plan is a creation of Parliament. What has been relied upon by Mr. Andley to build up his arguments is that because the Zonal Development Plan came into operation w.e.f. May, 1974 therefore grounds that property is being used in contradiction of Master Plan will not be applicable to the petitioner. Yet another argument is raised by Mr. Andley that a notice of Misuser was issued to the respondent by DDA and subsequently respondent was prosecuted. However, on the basis of prosecution launched by the Delhi Development Authority against the respondent for the misuser under the provisions of DDA Act, Magistrate found that respondent could not be prosecuted. May be for the purposes of criminal prosecution if a property is being used prior to coming into force the Zonal Development Plan, the offender may escape criminal prosecution. But that will not hold good in case of user of the land or the property for the purposes of Delhi Rent Control Act. Master Plan being paramount to deal and notify the land used in the areas and the localities. Rent Controller, therefore, came to a total erroneous finding in law when in the impugned order he held '...hence evidently, the mere proof of the fact that nature of premises are residential will not conclude facts in favour of the petitioner when the same are let out for other purpose".

7. Now, that brings me to the question as to whether the premises were let out for other purpose than residential. The answer is itself provided in Ex. R-2. Rent Controller has not taken into account Ex. R-2 which is as follows :-

"lease of the garrage, study and servant quarter at D-262, defense Colony, New Delhi."

8. When the main premises, according to the admitted case of the parties pursuant to Ex. R-1, was taken for residential purposes, how a garrage, study and servant quarters could be used for purposes other than residential purpose. The said heading of Ex. R-2 provided the answer raised and agitated by the respondent-tenant before the Rent Controller. Ex. R-2 does not stop here. it also incorporates another clause to be following effect :-

"We shall observe Government and municipal rules and by-laws and also observe perform all covenants and conditions herein quitely hold and enjoy the demised premises without any interruption by you or your representatives."

9. When the main premises in residential locality like defense Colony was taken for the purpose of residence even if the Rent Controller came to the finding, "There were two instruments to create tenancy on account of submissions made by the petitioner", from the subject matter of the Ex. R-2, it was manifestly clear that lease was in relation to garrage, study and servant quarters. What kind of evidence was brought before the Rent Controller with regard to carrying out commercial activities except that the same was being used for storing of records and residence of care taker. The Rent Controller acted with material irregularity on the basis of record available before him where nothing was brought on record as to what kind of commercial activity was being carried out by the respondent and still held that the premises were let out for composite purpose. At best premises were used for stocking the records of the respondent and that would not fall in the category of composite user.

10. In view of the fact that the Rent Controller has already returned a finding in favour of petitioner regarding the bona fide requirement of the petitioner, I set aside the order of the Rent Controller on composite letting and hold that the dominant purpose was residential. I pass a Decree of Eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. However, Decree of Eviction shall not be executed before a period of six months.

11. Civil Revision is allowed.