S K SEN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition challenges the notice dated 12,2.1973 issued by Land and Development Office to the petitioner terminating the perpetual lease in their favour for violation of clause 6 of the prepetual lease. Before terminating the lease a notice was given to the petitioners informing that that on inspection of the premises on 4.11.1970 it was observed by the Inspecting Officer that an area measuring about 2843 sq, ft. in the main building at the ground floor of 48, Hanuman Road, New Delhi, (the leased property) was being used as Doctor's clinic (Ex-Ray Electro-Medical and Skin Clinic), The said notice called upon the petitioners to remove the breach within thirty days. On the failure of the petitioners to comply with the said notice, order terminating the perpetual lease was passed against the petitioners. It may be noted at this stage that the said Ex-Ray and Electro-Medical and Skin Clinic was being run by Dr. Ved Prakash who was the tenant of the petitioners. On 2.4 1973 the petitioners filed the suit against Dr. Ved Prakash and others for recovery of possession under clause (k) of the proviso to section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act alleging that Dr. Ved Prakash and his heirs were using the premises for commercial purposes, while the lease was granted to Dr. Ved Prakash for residential purposes.

(2.) The learned Rent Controller by his order dated 29.4.1978 held that Dr. Sen had made out the case for termination of the lease of Dr. Ved Prakash (and his heirs) underclause (k) of Section 14. The learned Judge further directed that the notice under Section 14(11) of the Delhi Rent Control Act be sent to Land and Development Department to as-certain whether they were prepared to regularise the misuser of the premises permanently on payment of compensation, and if so bow much. We may at this stage notice the provisions of clause (k) of proviso to section 14 and section 14(11): 14(k). "that the tenant, has, notwithstanding previous notice, used or dealt with the premises in a manner contrary to any condition imposed on the landlord by the Government or the Delhi Development Authority or the Municipal Corporation of Delhi while giving him a lease of the land on which the premises are situate;" 14(11). "No order for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made on the ground specified in clause (k) of the proviso to sub-section (1), if the tenant, within such time as may be specified in this behalf by the Controller, complies with the condition imposed on the landlord by any of the authorities referred to in that clause or pays to that authority such amount by way of compensation as the Controller may direct."

(3.) Against the order of the Rent Controller Mrs. Dr. Ved Prakash, widow of late Dr. Ved Prakash, filed an appeal to the Rent Control Tribunal. Cross objections were filed by the petitioners. The learned Rent Control Tribunal dismissed the cross-objections and allowed the appeal of Mrs. Ved Prakash. After setting aside the order of the Rent Controller, the Tribunal directed "the appellant shall deposit in the trial court within three months from today (i.e. 23.3.1981) misuse charges uptil 14.1.1980 amounting to Rs. 1,71,308.12 p. or stop the misuser within next fortnight thereto In default the appellant shall be liable to be evicted. For the subsequent period the respondent shall apply to Land and Development Office for temporary regularisation and inform the appellant about the charges claimed by the Land and Development for temporary regularisation by registered post Within one month of the receipt the appellant shall despatch the requisite amount or stop the misuser within fifteen days thereafter I default they would be liable to be evicted. However, if at any stage, the Land and Development Office refuses to condone the misuser even on temporary basis the respondent shall inform the appellant and appellants must stop the misuser within one month of the receipt of the information. In default they would be liable to be evicted." This order was passed by the Tribunal on 23.3.1981.