NEW GARAGE LTD Vs. KHUSWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts which have given rise to this revision may be briefly stated as follows. On 1-4-1940 Sir Sobha Singh gave on lease to Messrs. The New Garage, Limited, New Delhi, show room No. 11 in the Scindia House, New Delhi & a garage behind enough for fixing two ramps). The rent was originally Rs. 250 a month but it had since been raised to Rs. 501-7 per mensem. In the lease deed marked Ex. D-1 it was agreed by the parties as follows: "1. That the landlord agrees to let his show room No. 11 in the Seindia House, New Delhi, & a garage behind enough for fixing two ramps hereinafter called "the property" & the tenant agrees to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 250 regularly in advance. ***** 5. That the teuanoy (really the tenant) agrees to use the property as a motor show room & workshop. ***** On 37-4-1946 Sir Sobha Singh Bent a notice to the New Garage, Limited, stating that the occupation of show room No. 11 was without an existing lease & gave a notice to vacate the premises within six months from the receipt of the notice. This was under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act & some time after thia Sir Sobha Singh gifted thia property to his sons, the resps. in this caae, & on 30 5 1947 another notice was sent by the sons to the lenant asking the latter to vacate on the following grounds: 1. That the show room had been used for a workshop which was against the terms of the lease deed, 2. that by their user the tenant was creating a nuisance for the other tenants; & 3 that the premises were being used against Govt. rules & bye laws. The tenant denied these allegations & on 1-8-1947 the landlords filed what they called a suit for ejectment alleging, that the deft. company was using the premises for a purpose other than the one for which they were let & were thus spoiling the entire premises. They were keeping the place dirty from inside as well as from outside & thus they were a constant source of nuisance to other tenants & that the use of the promises aa a workshop was in contravention Govt. rules & that the tenancy had come to an end because of tho notice of ejectment which had not been complied with.

(2.) The deft, company admitted the tenancy but pleaded that the premises were taken for running a motor workshop & had been so used ever since they had taken the premises on rent. They denied that their acts amounted to a nuisance or that the user was in contravention of Govt. rules. They also pleaded that the plffs. were estopped by their conduct for claiming ejectment. Upon this the Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the suit premisea are being used for pur-poses other than for which they were let out? 2. Whether the user of the premises amounts to nuisance or annoyance to the neighbours of the said premises? Has the deft, used the premises in a manner con-trary to any condition imposed by the Govt? If the aforesaid issues are found in favour of the plff. can the deft, not be evicted? iS the plff. estopped from suing on account of his conduct? Belief.

(3.) The trial Court held (1) that the premises could not be used for any purpose other than the one mentioned in the lease deed & the use of the premises as a workshop was unauthorized, (2) the user as a workshop did not amount to a nuisance & that there was no evidence that such a user was in contravention of Govt. rules or bye-laws & (a) by mere silence & acceptance of rent there could not be an estoppel. The suit was therefore, deoreed & ejectment ordered. Against this decree the deft company took an appeal to the Dist. J. Delhi, whoheld (1) that tho parties did not intend that any part of the premises could bo used as a workshop, (2) that the premises were let for show room only & defts' use as a workshop contravenes Section 9, Delhi & Ajmer Merwara Rent Control Act 1947. (3) that mere silence was not sufficient to constitute estoppel & (4) that the user of the premises in contravention of the original purpose for which they were let was a continuous breach & therefore the tenant was liable to be ejected. On these findings, he dismissed the appeal & against this order the petitioners have come up in revision to this Court under rule 6 (1), Delhi Rent Control Procedure Rules, 1947, which were made by this Court under Section 14 (2), Delhi & Ajmer Merwara Rent Control Act, 1947.