BEDI AND BEDI ASSOCIATES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this suit, the plaintiff-lessor has been seeking a decree for recovery of possession against the defendants in respect of the premises No. 41, Community Centre, Vasant Lok, Basant Vihar, New Delhi and also a decree against the defendant for the recovery of mesne profits/damages at the rate of Rs. l,34,368.00 for the period 1.3.1991 to 11.11.1991 i.e.Rs. ll,97,033.30andalsoatthe same rate from the date of the suit till recovery of possession, also requiring the defendant to pay directly the amount as may be ascertained by the DDA and a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using or allowing to be used the third floor of property No. 41, Community Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi and the costs of the suit.

(2.) Case set out in the plaint, shortly stated is, that plaintiff No. 1 is the registered partnership firm engaged in the business of estate management and consultancy. That plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 4 are the owners plot No. 41, Community Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi admeasuring 145.67 sq.mtrs. which was taken by them on perpetual lease from the Delhi Development Authority w.e.f. 28.9.1973. Subsequently, a perpetual lease deed was executed and registered by DDA in favour of plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 4. That the construction of the premises was completed in the year 1978. Thereafter, plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 4 engaged the services of plaintiff No. I for searching suitable tenant/tenants for the premises in question, as also to negotiate the terms of letting out the premises on their behalf. This is how the property came to be let out by plaintiff No. I to the defendants. The defendant No. 2 has been arrayed in the present proceedings because defendant No. 1 is the part and parcel of defendant No. 2. That tenancy was initially created by way of exchange of letters and correspondence. Accordingly, the entire building having total commercial area of 7904 sq.ft. on all its floors, was leased out to defendant No. 1 on 17.7.1978. The agreed rent at that time was Rs. 2.50 paise per sq.ft. per month for the total area of 7904 sq.ft. Accordingly, a rent of Rs. 19,760.00 per month was settled. That at the time of letting out the premises, the premises were fully seen and inspected by the defendant and their officials and the user of the various portions of the building, as authorised by the DDA, was also duly intimated to the defendants and it was thereafter, that the premises were taken by them on rent. That barring the third floor, all other areas were and should have been used for commercial purpose. As regards the third floor is concerned, the user was by the very nature of construction,confirmed to residential useonly. That after the expiry of one year, the lease on the request of defendants was extended on the same terms and conditions for a further period of one year, vide plaintiffs' letter dated 23.7.1979. The extended period expired on 6.7.1980. In spite of repeated reminders, the property was not vacated by the defendants and they continued to be in occupation of the demised premises. It is also averred in the plaint that thereafter eviction proceedings were initiated against the defendant under Section 14(l)(c) and Section 14(1 )(k) of the 475 Delhi Rent Control Act; that the said eviction proceedings are pending; that in the mean time. Section 3 of the said Act came to be amended and by virtue of Section 3(c) of the said Act (Amended), the premises, getting rent more than Rs. 3,500.00 per month, were taken out of the purview of the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Accordingly, w.e.f. 1.12.1988, defendants ceased to enjoy the Special protection enjoyed by them earlier. On 1.12.1988, the relationship between the parties was to be, therefore, governed in accordance with the provisions of the Transport of Property Act. That the tenancy of defendant is duly terminated by legal notice time and again and the plaintiffs served notice of termination of tenancy w.e.f.l.1.1991. Thus, according to the plaintiff, the defendants no longer enjoy the protection under the Delhi Rent Control Act and the defendant would be governed under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act. It is also averred that the defendants have changed the user of the premises than the one authorised by DDA. On these averments, the plaintiffs pray for the relief, aforestated.

(3.) Defendant filed written statement to the suit and refuted the claim of the plaintiff, inter-alia contending that the suit is based on totally wrong premise that the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The provisions of the Act prior to its amendment and also after its amendment, are applicable to the facts of the case especially since the standard rent of the premises in dispute is less than Rs. 3,500.00 per month. That the plaintiff instituted eviction proceedings in the Court of Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, who initially dismissed the petition. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal against the order of the Additional Rent Controller. That the said appeal is still pending. It is submitted that the plaintiff is estopped from contending that the provisions of the Act are not applicable to this case. The defendants have denied that the defendants have been using the premises for the purpose, other than the purpose authorised by the DDA. It is denied that the defendant is liable for any mesne profit, as alleged and also the charges to DDA for the change of user. That the plaintiff was fully aware that defendant No. I is an authority under the Union of India and wanted to take on rent the building only for its offices. It was the duty of the plaintiff to know the bye-laws of the DDA and that it should have acted in accordance with the said bye-laws at the time of letting out the premises. The onus of obtaining "No Objection Certificate" from DDA is that of the plaintiff and not of the defendants. Plaintiffs are estopped from alleging that the tenancy of defendants for commercial purpose is in violation of the bye-laws of DDA. It is not denied that the plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 12.3.1983. That the plaintiffs have made no efforts to have the pending eviction petition disposed of. That the amendment in Section 3 of the Act has no effect to the present case. The relationship between the parties is governed by the Delhi Rent Control Act and not by the Transfer of Property Act. That the legal notices after 1st of March are after thought and without any basis. That it is the responsibility of the plaintiff to ensure that his premises are properly used. The defendants' status is only that of a tenant and they had accepted the offer sent by the plaintiffs for letting out the premises. In substance, the defendants dispute the plaintiffs' claim as put forth in the plaint and pray for the dismissal of the suit with costs. 476