BANK OF RAJASTHAN LIMITED Vs. RAJ RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgments dated 12th September, 1989 and 15th January 1991 passed by the Rent Controller, Delhi and Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi respectively.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the respondent Raj Rani filed an eviction petition against the appellant bank for recovery of possession of the premises comprising of entire ground floor, including two rooms, a hall, a kitchen, bath and W.C. with verandah in front and rear courtyard with exclusive use of open space in front of the property bearing No.21-B/2, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi on the ground of misuser. It was alleged that the appellant was using the premises in violation of the terms of the lease granted to the respondent-lessee. The petition was contested and vide Order dated November 10, 1986 it was held that a case under Section 14 (1)(k) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the `Act') was made out. Accordingly, a notice under Section 14(11) was issued to the lessor, Delhi Development Authority who submitted its reply on November 16, 1988 in which a sum of Rs.40,139.20 as compounding fee for the period 1.1.1974 to 31.3.1982 was claimed. The Authority further claimed a sum of Rs.77,091.09 for the period 1.4.1982 to 31.5.1988 and made clear that the lessor was interested in the removal of non-conforming use of the premises in suit and the payment of misuse charges/penalty for the condonation of breaches of the terms of the lease for the past in no way confers any rights on the lessee and in no way affects the rights of the lessor to determine the lease. The Rent Controller, accordingly, held that the Delhi Development Authority was in no way willing to allow the continuous misuse of the premises and were interested that the misuser should stop. As a consequence direction was issued to the appellant to pay the aforesaid two amounts of penalty and also to stop the misuser of the premises within two months from the date of passing the Order failing which the eviction order was to be deemed to have been passed against the appellant and the appellant was liable to vacate the premises in suit as shown in the site plan Exhibit AW-2/1. The appellant felt aggrieved by this Order and filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the Order and dismissed the appeal but granted further two months time to comply with the impugned Order failing which an eviction order under Section 14 (1)(k) of the Act was deemed to have been passed against the appellant.

(3.) The only contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that once the Rent Controller was not satisfied with the reply filed by the Delhi Development Authority and directed the Authority to file a specific reply as to whether the banking business could be permitted, the impugned Order of eviction was not liable to be passed in the absence of such reply. There is, therefore, no compliance of the provisions of Section 14(11) of the Act. The other contention which has been half-heartedly contended is that the Delhi Development Authority cannot be allowed to take discriminatory stand in case of the property occupied by the appellant as the other premises similarly situated are permitted to continue the commercial activity on the payment of misuser charges. The two grounds as raised in the present appeal were examined and dealt with in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the judgment of the Tribunal which may be reproduced as under:-