BEHARI LAL Vs. KUNDAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the landlord of a house No. G-1-A, Kalkaji. Since 1962, a single room therein was let out by the landlord to the respondent at a rent of Rs. 45.00 p.m. The landlord filed a petition for the eviction of the respondent from the premises on the ground that the tenant, contrary to the terms of the lease of the property to the landlord, was using the premises for commercial purposes. He pointed out that the Land and Development Office (L&DO) had objected to this misuser and given a notice to the landlord on 21-5-1973 to discontinue the wrongful user. The Additional Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the respondent if the misuser of the premises was not put to an end within thirty days from the date of the order. He was of opinion that since the L&DO was not willing to condone the misuser of the premises, the tenant could not be permitted to continue in the premises availing himself of the benefit to Section 14(11) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) The tenant filed an appeal to the Rent Control Tribunal. The Rent Control Tribunal issued notice to the L&DO. The L&DO filed a reply and stated that it was willing to accept penalties for condoning the breaches as a temporary measure. The amounts of penalties payable for the tenant's misuser were also mentioned by the L&DO. Accepting these figures the Rent Control Tribunal partly allowed the appeal and modified the impugned order of eviction by directing that the appellant should either stop the misuser of the property within one month from the date of the order or should deposit or pay to the landlord the amounts specified by the L&DO (a proportion thereof as mentioned in the order and not the whole amount) and should also continue to pay or deposit penalties and damages that may be imposed by the L&DO for condoning the breaches in the future in the same proportion as mentioned above. He, however, made it clear that in case the L&DO at some stage was not prepared to condone the farther misuser and fixed some target date for stopping the misuser finally then the appellant should stop the misuser by that date. The Rent Control Tribunal directed that in case the appellant failed to pay the amounts mentioned above or to be imposed in future or failed to stop the misuser, as the case may be, within the time prescribed, the order of eviction will stand revived against him. This order of the Rent Control Tribunal was passed on 10th August, 1978.

(3.) The landlord has preferred this appeal. The question at issue has been considered in two judgments of this Court which have been brought to my notice. In Prem Saroop Chopra v. S.N Bhatia (1985 RLR 212) Avadh Behari, J. held that where the DDA takes the stand that misuser must be removed then the Controller is justified in ordering the removal or else eviction. That was a case where the demised premises was being used for a commercial purpose, namely, the running of a private school and the DDA had stated before the Rent Controller that it was keenly interested in putting an end to the non-conforming use and that payment of misuse charges for condonation of breaches in the past should not be treated as conferring any right on the lessee or affecting the rights of the lessor to determine the lease and re-enter the premises if the misuser continued. In those circumstances, the learned Judge held that the tenant should be directed to stop misuse of the premises within a short time or else would be liable to eviction.