LAWS(DLH)-1982-3-6

CUREWELL INDIA LIMITED Vs. SAHIB SINGH

Decided On March 02, 1982
CUREWELL INDIA LIMITED Appellant
V/S
SAHIB SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant in this appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter refferred to as 'the Act') challanges the judgment and order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 20th December 1978 passed under Section 14(l)(k) of the Act, directing the appellant to stop us ing the premises for any purposes other than residential or pay to the landlord or deposit in court a sum of Rs. 1,17,761.73 within three months and the landlord then shall get the breanches condoned from the Government. The Tribunal further ordered that in case the misuser was not stopped or the amount was not paid within the time prescribed, the appellant would be evicted.

(2.) Briefly the facts are that the appellant, Curewell (India) Pvt. Ltd. on 21st November, 1969 took on rent the property at 72, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar III New Delhi on a monthly rent of Rs. 2300.00 exclusive of electricity, water and other charges. The appellant was using the premises for residence- cum-office purposes. The respondent landlord served a notice dated 9th July, 1972 requiring the appellant to stop using the premises for office purposes as the said purpose was contrary to the terms of the lease of the plot executed between the landlord and the President of India. The appellant did not stop using the premises for office purposes. On 16th September, 1972 the landlord filed the eviction application claiming eviction under clauses (e) & (k) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Act. The Controller passed anorder of eviction under Section 14(l)(k) of the Act. On aKppeal the Tribunal confirmed the ground of eviction covered by clause (k) of Section 14(1) of the Act with a modification. The petition for eviction under Section 14(1 )(e) of the Act was dismissed.

(3.) The Tribunal determined that a sum of Rs. 1,17,761.73 as misuse charges for the period ending4th January, 1979 was payable by the appellant as compensation. The appellant was accordingly directed either to stop using the premises for any purpose other than residential or pay to the lardlord or deposit in court a sum of Rs 1,17,761 73 on account of misuse charges within three months failing which it was ordered that it would be liable to be evicted.