LAWS(DLH)-2012-8-28

UNION OF INDIA Vs. SATISH KUMAR MEHTA

Decided On August 06, 2012
UNION OF INDIA Appellant
V/S
SATISH KUMAR MEHTA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent is the perpetual lessee of a plot of land bearing Municipal No.182, Jor Bagh, New Delhi on the terms contained in the perpetual lease deed dated October 19, 1966. The lessor is the President of India acting through the Land & Development Office. The perpetual lease obliges the respondent to construct a residential building on the plot and use the same for a residential purpose. The respondent constructed a residential building and used it for residential purpose.

(2.) THE problems of the respondent commenced, when in August 1971 he let out the first floor of the property to M/s. Consilium Pvt. Ltd. at a rent of Rs.1,100/- per month; expressly recording in the lease-deed that the first floor would be used only for the purposes of residence by a Director of the Company.

(3.) THIS led respondent to file Suit No.632/1983 in the Court of the learned Senior Sub Judge Delhi, praying that L&DO be restrained from re-entering the property. Respondent alleged that there was no misuse. In the written statement filed by L&DO, it was disclosed, for the first time, to the respondent that the misuse was in the form of the tenant partly using the first floor for office purposes; the written statement filed did not deny that the predominant use of the first floor was residential. The suit was ultimately disposed of recording statement by learned counsel for L&DO that it would not dispossess the respondent from the property without following due process of law. And what does that mean? Neither counsel could throw light on, for the reason, as per L&DO it had already followed the due process of law by issuing a notice to the respondent before passing the order of re-entry, and as per the respondent he had received a show-cause notice which was vague and did not list the alleged misuse and that his response was not considered; and further the appellants had kept quiet for over 5 years and had passed the order dated June 08, 1983 which once again did not list out the alleged misuse.