DEWAN DAULAT RANI KAPOOR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the notice dated 21st May. 1983 issued by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner, Ministry of Works & Housing, Land & Development Office, requiring the petitioner to remedy certain breaches specified in the said notice failing which action would be taken against the petitioner for violation of the terms of the lease deed.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows. Plot No. 2.8JorBagh, New Delhi was given on lease by the President of India on 20th December, 1969 by way of a perpetual lease. The petitioner constructed a double-storeyed residential house on the said plot after obtaining sanction from the competant authority. The petitioner let, out the entire premises to M/s Eastern India Marketing and Services Co. Private Ltd. on 1st January, 1963. The petitioner later discovered in the year 1980 that the tenants M/s Eastern India Marketing & Services Co. Private Ltd. had sublet the ground floor of the premises and had started running a Guest House on the first floor of the premises besides having made unauthorised constructions contrary to the terms of the lease deed. A notice in that regard was served by the petitioner on the tenant on 31st May, 1980 and the tenant was asked to stop the misuser and remove the unauthorised construction made thereon. A petition for eviction was filed under Sections 14(l)(c) and 14(l)(k) by the petitioner against the tenant on 8.7.1980.

(3.) The petitioner however received a letter from Respondent No. 1 under tbe signatures of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner, Land & Development Office dated 15.3.1983 staling that on inspection of the premises on 19.1.1983 certain breaches in contravention of Clauses 2(5) and 2(7) of the Lease Deed were seen and the petitioner was called upon to remedy the breaches within 30 days. The petitioner sent a reply to the aforesaid notice on 21st March, 1983 and informed the respondent that an eviction petition had been filed on the said ground against the tenants by the petitioner. The respondent however did not accept the explanation given by the petitioner and a further notice was sent to the petitioner by the respondent on 21st May, 1983. The respondent informed the petitioner that since there was a privity of contract only between the lessor and the lessee, the respondents were not concerned with the breaches committed by the tenant and it was for the petitioner to regularise the breaches. The respondent gave the petitioner 15 days' time to regularise the breaches falling which the respondent threatened to re-enter the premises. It is this notice of the respondent dated 21st May, 1983 which is challenged by the petitioner in this present writ. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Clause (5) of the perpetual lease provides that no forfeiture or re-entry shall be effected without the permission of the Chief Commissioner of Delhi and it is further provided in this clause that if the breach is capable of remedy and the lessee fails to remedy the same within a reasonable time from the date of service of notice to remedy the breach, the Chief Commissioner has a right to forfeit or re-enter the premises. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the premises were in possession of the tenant, the lessee was not in a position to remedy the breaches straightway and the reasonable time would include the time taken in evicting the tenant from the premises on that ground. The learned counsel relied on Amrit Lal Bussi (since died) v. Union of India and others, AIR 1987 Delhi 340 in support of his contention. A similar question was raised in Amrit Lal Bussi (supra). I have observed that "when the leased premises were tenanted and the misuse was by the tenant, the time taken by the lessee in stopping the misuse by the tenant had to be considered to be reasonable time while interpreting a lease deed which specified that re-entry and forfeiture would not be ordered if the misuse was remedied within reasonable time."