SARAN DASS Vs. UPTON INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The premises were let out by the appellant landlord to the respondent tenant in 1954 for the purpose of a godown in which the tea manufactured by the respondent company is stored. In 1963 a lease deed was executed for and on behalf of the President of India in favour of the appellant landlord of the land on which the premises were situated. Condition No. 1(vi) of the lease deed is as follows:-

(2.) The use of the premises for the purpose of a godown by the tenant continued even after the execution of the lease by the landlord in favour of the Government. By notice dated 10-11-1963, the Gornment informed the landlord that it had come to their notice that the premises were being used for a commercial purpose in contravention of condition No. l(vi) of the lease deed. The Government, therefore, called upon the landlord to get the breach of the condition regularised within 15 days failing which the Chief Commissioner would be requested to exercise the right of re-entry into the premises as provided in clause II of the lease deed. The landlord thereupon gave a notice dated 20-7-1968 to the tenant requiring it to stop the user of the premises as a godown and also terminating the tenancy. As the user of the premises for a godown continued notwithstanding the said notice by the landlord to the tenant, the petition for eviction under clause (k) of the proviso to section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 was filed by the landlord against the tenant. The tenant defended the petition on the ground that the landlord had himself let out the premises to the tenant for the purpose of a storage godown. The depot or godown was neither a commercial establishment or a shop. The landlord could not, therefore, vacate the tenant.

(3.) The Controller held that the requirements of clause (k) of the proviso to section 14(1) were satisfied. He further held that the question whether the premises were used as a shop or commercial establishment was not relevant for construing clause (k). He, therefore, ordered the eviction of the tenant.