SADA SINGH Vs. VISHWA MITTER ANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the perpetual lessee of property bearing no. 100-A Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi in pursuance to an allotment made by the Rehabilitation Department. A perpetual lease was executed on 22.07.1964. One room on the ground floor of the suit property was let out to Smt. Shanti Devi, predecessor in interest of the respondent for commercial purposes. This was despite the fact that as per the perpetual lease the property could be used only for residential purposes. The letting out is stated to have been done some time in the year 1973. On account of misuser both the petitioner and Smt. Shanti Devi were prosecuted by the DDA, the perpetual lessor, and were both convicted in the year 1984.

(2.) The petitioner filed eviction proceeding sunder Section 14(1)(k) of the Delhi Rent control Act, 1958 (herein-after referred to as the said Act) on 13.02.1986. The said petition was however dismissed on 06.03.1995 by the Additional Rent Controller for certain technical reasons but the appeal filed before the Additional Rent Control Tribunal was allowed by the order dated 07.01.2002. In terms of the order in appeal, it was found that since the premises were meant for residence and were being used for commercial purposes, the requirements of the conditions under Section 14(1)(k) of the said Act were fulfilled and the only question to be considered is in respect of an enquiry under Section 14(11) of the said Act for which purpose notice was directed to be issued by the ARC to the L and DO as well as the DDA. It may be noticed that the respondent filed a second appeal against the said order but no interim stay was granted the second appeal came to be dismissed by the order dated 12.02.2004 of this court. However, in the mean time an enquiry started under Section 14(11) of the said Act and the Additional Rent Controller passed an order on 26.05.2003.

(3.) The Additional Rent Controller found that the respondent could use the premises for ironing of clothes (which was the offending commercial business) with the consent of the owner/lessee and this would imply the consent of the petitioner or the paramount lessor i.e. L and DO. The petitioner clearly stated that he was not ready to give consent to the respondent and as per the DDA the said activity of ironing of the clothes had to be stopped as the same did not conform to the Master Plan/ Zonal Plan. A direction was thus issued to the respondent to stop the misuser and to use the premises as per the requirement of law and the terms and conditions of the lease which can be for residential purposes or with the consent of L and DO and DDA to be used for ironing of the clothes. The respondent was also called upon to file an affidavit in this regard within fifteen days of the date of the order and regarding past misuser the respondent was directed to deposit the amount of Rs.57,000 with the L and DO apart from furnishing an undertaking on stamp paper within fifteen days from the date of the order. In case of compliance the respondent would escape the eviction order failing which the eviction order was liable to be passed.