Back
1996(8) Supreme 192
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Ahmadi, C.J.I., Sujata V. Manohar, & B.N. Kirpal, JJ.
Dr. K. Madan -Appellant
versus
Smt. Krishnawati & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 14195 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 23208 of 1995)
Decided on 6-11-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : R.K. Jain, Sr. Advocate (Manoj Goel) Advocate for A.R. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Union of India : Ms. Indra Sawhney and V.K. Verma, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Arun Jaitley, Sr. Advocate, Rajeev Sharma, T.C. Sharma, Advocates.
Held : The principal lessor may, in a given case, be satisfied, in cases of breach of lease to get compensation only and may waive its right of re-entry or cancellation of lease. In such a case the Controller may, instead of ordering eviction under Section 14(1)(k) of the Act, direct payment of compensation as demanded by the authorities mentioned in clause (k). Where, however, as in the present case compensation is demanded in respect of condoning/removal the earlier breach, but the authority insists that the misuser must cease then the Controller has no authority to pass an order under Section 14(11) or Section 14(1)(k) of the Act giving a license or liberty of continued misuser. In other words, sub-section 11 of Section 14 enables the Controller to give another opportunity to the tenant to avoid an order of eviction. Where the authority concerned requires stoppage or misuser then an order to that effect has to be passed, but where the authority merely demands compensation for misuser and does not require the stoppage of misuser then only in such a case would the Controller be justified in passing an order for payment of compensation alone. The observations of this Court in Punjab National Bank s case (supra) to the effect that as long as the penalty continued to be paid, deviation to user could be permitted, do not appear to be in consonance with the decision of the larger Bench in Faqir Chand s case (supra). Continued wrongful user cannot be permitted by levying penalty but if the authorities do not require the stoppage of misuser, but merely ask for payment of penalty or compensation, then in such a case, an order of eviction or for stoppage of premises need not be passed and it will be sufficient if compensation is required to be paid. Coming to the facts of the present case, the Additional Rent Controller in order dated 13.9.1985, while issuing notice under Section 14(11) has observed that the landlord has placed on record a notice sent by the Land and Development Office regarding misuser. In the written statement failed on behalf of the Land and Development Office in response to the notice issued under Section 14(11), it was stated that the question of regularisation/condoning the breach permanently did not arise. The said reply contemplates an undertaking being given by the Landlord for removal of breach otherwise there is a threat of re-entry. The payment of misuse charges would only amount to temporary regularisation of the earlier misuser and the Land and Development Office clearly insisted on the stoppage of the misuser.This being so, the question of the Controller requiring payment of compensation and permitting continued misuser would not be in accordance with law. (Paras 19, 20 & 21)
JUDGMENT
Kirpal, J.-Leave granted.
2. This is an appeal by the appellant-tenant in which the challenge is to an order which had been passed under Section 14(1)(k) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).
3. The appellant is a lady Doctor and in the year 1963, she took the ground floor of House No. 1-II/91, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi from one Gyan Chand Shingari at a monthly rent of Rs.175/-p.m. According to the appellant, this rent was first raised to Rs. 265/- p.m. in the year 1968 and then to Rs. 300/- p.m. in the year 1970.
4. In August, 1974 the aforesaid Gyan Chand Shingari died and his widow, the respondent herein, became the owner of the property and the appellant attorned to her. According to the appellant, the premises were taken on rent by her for residential-cum-commercial purposes. She was residing in the said premises and was also running a clinic. According to the respondent, however, the premises were given on rent only for residence.
5. In the year 1974, the appellant constructed her own residential house in East of Kailash, New Delhi and, soon thereafter she shifted her residence to the new house but continued to retain the premises in dispute where she maintained her clinic. It appears that possession of some of the portion of the ground floor, which had been in the occupation of the appellant, was taken back by the respondent but the appellant continued to be the tenant of two rooms with a common use of latrine and front varandah on the ground floor of the aforesaid house.
6. On 17.5.1978 the respondent filed an eviction petition against the appellant before the Rent Controller being Suit No. 134 of 1978 under Section 14(1)(k) and (h) of the Act. By judgment dated 13.9.1985, the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi came to the conclusion that the eviction of ground floor under Section 14(1)(c) of the Act had not been made out. Eviction orders were, however, passed on the ground under section 14(1)(h) namely that the appellant had acquired vacant possession of a residence inasmuch as she had constructed her own house in East of Kailash. The Additional Rent Controller further held that the ground under Section 14(1)(k) of the Act had been made out inasmuch as the appellant was using the premises as a clinic which was contrary to the terms and conditions imposed by the Land and Develpment office on the respondent land-lady. The case of the respondent was that the premises in question were residential and according to the terms of the lease given by the government the said premises could not be used for any other purposes. A Doctor was allowed to use the premises upto 500 square feet as his clinic provided the Doctor resided in the said premises. Inasmuch as the appellant had shifted from the Lajpat Nagar House to her own house in Eastof Kailash, therefore, the submission was that her continued user of the premises in question only as a clinic was against the terms of the lease. The Additional Rent Controller vide his judgment dated 13.9.1985, while disposing of the petition on the above two grounds under Sections 14(1)(h) and 14(1)(k) of the Act, issued notice under Section 14(11) of the Act to the Land and Development Office.
7. At this stage, it is appropriate to refer to the relevant portion of the Act namely; Sections 14(1)(k) and 14(11) of the Act which read as under:
"Clause (k) of the proviso to sub-section (1) provides that the Controller may,on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on the ground 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 giving him a lease of the land on which the premises are constructed. The requirements of clause (k) may be analysed as follows:
(1) The user of the premises by th
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
