KTISHNAWATI Vs. K MADAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is an adage to the effect that fools build houses for wise men to live in. This has almost come true in this case.

(2.) Sometime in 1983, the appellant/landlady had filed an eviction petition seeking eviction of the respondent/tenant on three grounds, namely, under Clauses (e),(h) and (k) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(3.) Insofar as the ground under Clause (e) is concerned, the learned Additional Rent Controller came to the conclusion (in his order dated 13th September, 1985) that no case was made out by the appellant. This ground was not pressed further. Insofar as the ground under Clause (k) is concerned, the learned Additional Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the respondent was in breach of the provisions of Clause (k) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Act since the respondent was misusing the premises for commercial purposes, that is, for running a clinic. The respondent did not challenge this finding but, on the question of .payment of charges for regularising the misuser, the matter went upto the Supreme Court and in Dr. K. Madan v. Krishnawanti (Smt.) & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 707, the Supreme Court granted two months' time to the appellant therein to stop the misuser of the premises and to pay the misuser charges.