RAMESH KUMAR Vs. VIKRANT MALHOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has assailed an order dated 21.5.2007 of learned ARCT dismissing an appeal of the petitioner against the order of the learned Additional Rent Controller dated 8.2.2007.

(2.) THE petitioner was a tenant in respect of property no. 26/1506, Ground Floor, Naiwala, Karol Bagh, Delhi. He suffered an eviction order under Section 14(1)(k) of Delhi Rent Control Act on 19.2.2002. The learned ARC, after allowing eviction petition under Section 14(1)(k) of DRC Act, initiated an enquiry in terms of Section 14(11) of DRC Act. This order of learned ARC was challenged by the petitioner in appeal before the ARCT, thereafter before High Court and then in Supreme Court. The order of learned ARC under Section 14(1)(k) of DRC Act was upheld right up to the Supreme Court. Vide order dated 8.2.2007, the learned ARC disposed of the enquiry under Section 14(11) of DRC Act and directed the petitioner to pay half of the mis-user charges i.e. Rs. 2,61,287.50 to the DDA within 30 days and remaining 50% to be paid by the respondent to the DDA on demand, and also directed petitioner to stop the mis-user of the tenanted premises within 30 days of passing of the order to avoid eviction from the tenanted premises. It is apparent that in case of non-stop of misuse, the petitioner had to suffer an eviction. The petitioner is using the premises as a shop whereas the premises was allotted to the landlord by superior lessor (DDA) only for residential purpose. Against the order of ARC dated 8.2.2007, petitioner preferred appeal before Additional Rent Control Tribunal without success, and now has approached this Court.

(3.) THE petitioner before the learned ARC had taken the stand that in view of the change of policy on account of issuance of notifications dated 7.9.2006 and 15.9.2006 and notification of Master Plan Delhi 2021 dated 7.9.2006, the area in question was being allowed by the government to be used for commercial activity. So, there was no misuser of the premises even if it was being used by the petitioner as a shop. The petitioner could not be asked to stop the user of premises as a shop. The petitioner's contention was that DDA's stand that misuser could not be condoned permanently was a wrong stand in view of change of policy. This argument was pressed before the learned ARC and thereafter it was pressed before the learned ARCT and now has been pressed before this Court. The learned ARC after considering the entire facts, policy and law brought on record came to the conclusion that the contention raised by the petitioner about the area having been permitted to be used for commercial purpose was not correct. The notifications dated 7.9.2006 and 15.9.2006 only talk of streets having 12 m or more width. The width of the road at which the shop in question was located, was less than even 6 m and therefore, the street had not become commercial by the notifications.