1. Commercial use of residential premises leased from a development authority — Eviction proceedings under Section 14(1)(k) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 1308
2000(5) Supreme 491
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Delhi High Court)
S.S. Mohammed Quadri and Y.K. Sabharwal, JJ.
Shri Munshi Ram & Anr. -Appellants
versus
Union of India & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3095 of 1990
Decided on 10-8-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : K.N. Rawal, Additional Solicitor General, D.D. Thakur, A.B. Rohatgi, Sr. Advocates, Vijay Prakash, Siddharth Choudhary, Rajeev Sharma, T.N. Bhat, B.K. Punj, B.K. Sharma, S.B. Kumar, J.M. Khanna, V.B. Saharya, S.W.A. Qadri, S.N. Terdol, and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates.
Important Points
A tenant is liable for eviction under Section 14(1)(k) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, for using premises contrary to lease conditions imposed by the DDA. If the DDA refuses to regularize the misuse, offering compensation cannot prevent eviction.
Subject
Landlord and Tenant - Eviction
Act Referred
Headnote
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958-Section 14(1)(k)-Eviction-User of premises contrary to condition imposed on landlord-Land leased out to landlord by DDA for erection of residential house-Part of house let out-Tenant using premises for commercial purpose-DDA threatening to terminate lease and resume possession-Landlord s petition under Section 14(1)(k) against tenant-Rent Controller directing tenant to pay past-misuser charges to landlord to be deposited with DDA and stop misuser within two months-Non-compliance of order would result in deemed eviction order-Plea before Supreme Court for remand of case to rent controller stating tenant would pay penalty as compensation that may be determined by Rent Controller to be payable to DDA till matter of regularisation is finally decided-Plea untenable-DDA is not contemplating to regularise misuser-Continued misuser would result in cancellation of lease and resumption of possession-Rent Controllers order warranted no interference. (Paras 6 to 9)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether eviction is sustainable despite potential regularization of land use, absence of zonal plans, or availability of penalty payments in lieu of eviction. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 )
3. Breach of lease terms is distinct from master plan violations; where the lessor refuses to condone mis-user, the tenant cannot avoid eviction by paying penalties. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
4. Eviction under Section 14(1)(k) of the Delhi Rent Control Act is permissible where tenants violate lease conditions and the lessor insists on termination. (Para 4 , 9 )
5. Appeal dismissed — Appellants granted two months to comply with the conditional eviction order. (Para 10 )
6. Can a tenant avoid eviction under Section 14(1)(k) of the Delhi Rent Control Act by paying compensation for mis-user?
Not if the paramount lessor insists on the cancellation of the lease and re-entry. While Section 14(11) allows the Controller to grant time to comply or pay compensation, continued unauthorized use allows the lessor to exercise the right of re-entry. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 9 )
7. Does the absence of a Zonal Development Plan or specific regulations under the Delhi Development Act prevent eviction for mis-user of leased premises?
No. Eviction under Section 14(1)(k) of the Delhi Rent Control Act is based on the breach of specific terms of the lease. Such breach is independent of whether the use contravenes a master plan or zonal plan under the Delhi Development Act. (Para 8 )
8. What are the opportunities provided to a tenant to avoid eviction under Section 14(1)(k) of the Delhi Rent Control Act?
The tenant is provided two opportunities: first, upon receiving notice from the landlord, and second, when a conditional order is passed under Section 14(11) directing the tenant to pay compensation and stop the unauthorized use. (Para 9 )
JUDGMENT
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.-The appellants are tenants. The tenanted premises are situate in Karol Bagh Area, Delhi. The landlord is respondent No. 3 whereas Union of India and the Delhi Development Authority (for short DDA ) are respondents 1 and 2 respectively.
2. The tenanted premises are part of building constructed on the land leased to the original lessee by Delhi Improvement Trust. The DDA succeeded the said Trust. The perpetual lease, inter alia, provides that the lessee will not use the land and building that may be erected thereon during the terms of the lease for any other purpose than for the purpose of residential house without the consent in writing of the lessor. Admittedly the premises are being used by the appellants for commercial purposes.
3. By notice dated 4th January, 1982 issued by DDA, respondent No. 3 was informed that the premises were being used for the purpose of commercial-cum-residential which is contrary to the terms of the lease and the lease has become void and the lessor has right to re-enter after cancellation of lease. It was further stated in the said notice that the lease has been cancelled by DDA on 23rd December, 1981 for breach of Clause I(VI) and the possession of the plot together with the building and the fixtures standing thereon will be taken over by DDA. In a suit filed by respondent No. 3 against DDA for grant of permanent injunction, interim injunction was granted by civil court inter alia noticing in the order that the owner had instituted eviction proceedings as far back as in 1974 against the tenants who were running their shops even at the time of the purchase of premises in question by the owner from its erstwhile owner.
4. In 1974, respondent No. 3 instituted eviction petitions against the appellants seeking their eviction under clause (k) of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short the Act ). The said clause stipulates an order of eviction being passed against the tenant who 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. The tenant cannot resist his eviction when sought under Section 14(1)(k) of the Act merely on the ground that the landlord had himself let out the premises for commercial use (Faqir Chand v. Shri Ram Rattan Bhanot1). Under sub-section (11) of Section 14 of the Act, before an order for recovery of possession of any premises on the grounds specified in clause (k) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of the said section is made, the Controller is required to give to the tenant time to comply with the conditions imposed on the landlord by any of the authorities referred to in clause (k) or pays to that authority such amount by way of compensation as the Controller may direct.
5. The Additional Rent Controller by order dated 6th September, 1988 after coming to the conclusion that the DDA is not interested in permitting the misuse permanently or even temporarily and has threatened to re-enter the premises, directed the appellants to pay within two months the past mis-user charges to respondent No. 3 for being deposited with the DDA. The appellants were also directed to pay further compensation/charges as may be demanded by DDA in this regard. The appellants were directed to stop mis-user of the premises within two months from the date of the order and in the event of non-compliance of any of these conditions, it was directed that the order of eviction under Section l4(1)(k) of the Act shall be deemed to have been passed against the appellants for their eviction from the premises in question, this conditional order of eviction has been upheld by the Rent Control Tribunal in appeal as also by the High Court.
6. Challenging the aforesaid orders, Mr. D.D. Thakur submits that sinc
