RAMESH BHASKAR KALE Vs. HARKIRAT SODHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent filed an eviction petition against the petitioner under Section 14(1)(c) and (j) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the said Act') in respect of the premises bearing no. N-8 market, Greater Kailash Part I, New Delhi to the extent of the basement, one show room on the ground floor with bath and toilet which is stated to be let out to the petitioner for commercial purposes on a monthly rent of Rs 1100/- exclusive of water and electricity charges. It was alleged that the tenancy was created for the purpose of store room and storage of goods, but subsequently the petitioner shifted huge machinery from his factory to the tenanted premises and started running a factory. The said use was stated to be not only contrary to the agreement between the parties but also in violation of the provisions of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 as also its bye laws and further causing a public nuisance. The respondent stated that a notice had been served on the petitioner to stop misuser but to no avail. The vibration and the smoke emitting from the factory was alleged to be endangering the suitability and safety of the building and causing health hazard to the respondent and the public at large. The petitioner was also alleged to have caused damage to the floors and walls of the building and additions and alterations have been allegedly made through the process of construction of partitions, extensive work on the walls and floors, unauthorized construction in the basement through a new staircase, construction of toilet in the basement against the sanction plan, installation of new water pumps and connection with storage pumps and putting pipelines through the walls and basement.

(2.) The petition was contested alleging that the premises had been originally let out by the father of the respondent Sh. M.S.Sodhi and the purpose of letting was commercial which included installation and running of machines in the premises. Some of the machines were stated to have been installed with the consent of Sh.M.S.Sodhi as per letter dated 25.04.95. The petitioner passed away during the proceedings and his legal heirs were impleaded.

(3.) The relevant provisions under which the eviction has been sought are as under: 14. Protection of tenant against eviction