C G KHANNA Vs. RAJINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition, the petitioner has assailed an order dated 27.2.2001 of learned Additional Rent Control Tribunal, whereby the learned ARCT reversed the judgment of Additional Rent Controller and set aside the eviction order passed in favour of the petitioner/landlord under Section 14(1)(c) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

(2.) The factual matrix is not in dispute. The respondent was tenant in respect of a shop (though situated in residential area) under the previous owner since 1971 and the premises was let out for commercial purpose. The respondent was initially running a bakery/general store in the shop then he started a printing press. The previous owner sold the entire premises to present petitioner who was another tenant in the premises. The present petitioner filed an eviction petition against respondent on the ground of change of user. He alleged that the premises was let out for residential purpose and was being used by respondent for running a printing press. The two Courts below had come to the conclusion that the premises was let out for commercial purpose where initially a bakery/general store was being run and later on the tenant started using the premises for printing press. While learned ARC came to the conclusion that the printing press being run by the respondent was not a collateral purpose. Running of printing press amounted to an industrial activity and thus it was a change of user and the petitioner had proved that the tenant/respondent had changed the user of premises to the purpose other than for which it was let out, the learned ARCT observed that this change of user was effected by the tenant during the ownership of the previous owner as the tenant had started printing press sometime in the year 1981 and the premises was purchased by the present owner almost after 10 years so this ground was not available to the petitioner. He also observed that since the previous landlady never raised any objection against the respondent regarding his having changed his business activity from a confectionary shop to a printing press, the present landlord had no right to seek eviction on this ground. He also observed that the work of printing press was a commerce under term "commercial activity" and even if the work of printing press was not a commercial activity and amounted to change of user, the present petitioner would not benefit from this change of user because when he purchased the premises the tenant had already switched over to the work of printing press during the tenure of earlier landlady. The learned ARCT further observed that even if it was assumed that the appellant/respondent did convert to a new business activity or say an industry without consent of the landlord in writing - then also provisions of Section 14(1)(5) of Delhi Rent Control Act were needed to be seen as to how there was a public nuisance caused by the running of the printing press and this was not elaborated and proved. The changed activity had also to be shown to have caused damage to the suit premises and the landlord did not examine a qualified architect to testify that the cracks observed in the walls of the premises of respondent or the damage caused to the floor was due to the running of a printing press and was not on account of normal wear and tear. He therefore, set aside the order of the learned Additional Rent Controller.

(3.) It must be understood as to what are the rights of a subsequent purchaser vis  -vis tenant. Once a person purchases property of another person, he purchases along with the property all rights and obligations pertaining to the property in respect of tenants living in the property and the right to evict tenants on the grounds on which the previous owner would have been liable to evict the tenant do also pass-over to the new landlord except where law puts a prohibition. In case of ground of bona fide necessity under section 14(1)(e), the Act has put a ban on a subsequent purchaser from bringing a suit on the ground of bona fide necessity for a period of five years. Thus, legislature was conscious of the fact that property with tenants may be sold, but the legislature put a ban vide Section 14(6) on a landlord who acquired any premises by transfer for the recovery of possession only in respect of ground under section 14(1)(e) of the Act for a period of five years. Such a ban in respect of subsequent purchaser is not there in case of other grounds available under Section 14. Thus, if a right has accrued to the previous landlord of evicting a tenant either for sub-letting or for change of user or for violation of the conditions imposed on the landlord by the government, the subsequent purchaser has the same right as the previous owner had. Therefore, the purchaser is not at a disadvantage vis  -vis the previous owner, in case an eviction is sought against the tenant merely because he was a subsequent purchaser or for the reason that the previous owner had not brought an action for eviction despite a right having been accrued to him. I, therefore consider that if the respondent was using the premises for printing press and the previous owner had not filed eviction petition despite a right having accrued to him that would not take away the right of the subsequent purchaser. The mere fact that the petitioner was aware at the time of purchasing the premises that the shop in question was being not put to the same user for which it was let out, would not disentitle him from bringing an eviction action.