VERY IMPORTANT POINT
The tenant cannot be made liable for payment of any amount towards the misuser charges determined by Controller under Section 14(11) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 in case he is ready and willing to deliver possession of the suit property to the lessor or lessee as the Court may direct in compliance of eviction order passed under Section 14(1)(k) of the Act.
[Query : The land was to be used for commercial purposes by the lessee and he gave it to the tenant for office purposes. Where is then the misuser? An office is also a commercial user. This point needs clarification by examination of real facts in the case.]

Headnote:(i) Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958-Sections 14(1)(k) and 14(11)-Eviction order passed u/s 14(1)(k)-Tenant was also directed to pay misuser charges by L & DO-Tenant offering to vacate in appeal before Supreme Court-Whether in this proceeding appellants/ tenants could be made liable for payment of any amount towards misuser charges as determined u/s. 14(11) of the Act? (No)-Proper course indicated-Case law referred.
       Held : From the scheme of the statutory provisions noted above, it is clear to us that the provisions are intended for protection of the tenant against eviction from the premises. Then the question that arises is whether a tenant who is not interested in seeking such protection and wants to vacate the premises could be compelled to pay misuser charges in the proceedings under the Act? The answer to the question, in our considered opinion, is in the negative. But that is not to say that the owner of the property or landlord of the tenant is precluded from realizing any compensation or damages for misuser or unauthorized user of the suit property. The Rent Control legislation, being intended for the benefit of a tenant and to protect legitimate interests of a landlord does not contemplate of a proceeding which in essence will be a substitute for a suit or other proceedings under law for realisation of damages or mesne profits. (Para 9)
       As noted earlier, Dr. Dhawan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants has, at the very outset, conceded that the appellants are not challenging the order of eviction passed against them and they are ready and willing to deliver vacant possession to the landlord or the paramount lessor as this Court may direct. In such circumstances the question of Controller directing the tenant to pay misuser charges does not arise. To maintain such an order will mean that even if the tenant has no intention to continue in possession of the premises and even if he is not contesting the eviction order the controller in exercise of his statutory power will compel him to pay misuser charge and continue in possession of the property. The Legislature could not have intended to create such a situation while enacting the provision in Section 14(11) of the Act. At the cost of repetition we would like to state here that we do not intend to hold that in such a situation the landlord or the paramount lessor cannot realize compensation, damages or mesne profits for wrongful user of the property from the tenant or erstwhile tenant. However, this purpose cannot be achieved by an order of the Controller under Section 14(11) of the Act in the situation as discussed earlier. Therefore, the position that emerges is that the order passed by the Controller for eviction of the appellants under clause (k) of proviso to Section 14(1) of the Act which was confirmed by the appellate authority and the High Court has to be maintained. The order passed by the Controller under Section 14(11) of the Act determining the misuser charges and apportioning the same between the parties which was also confirmed by the appellate authority and the High Court is unsustainable and has to be set aside. (Para 13)
       (ii) Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958-Sections 14(1)(k) and 14(11)-Eviction order u/s. 14(1)(k)-Appeal against to Supreme Court-Tenant offering to vacate-Whether after termination of the lease of land of the suit property by paramount lesser of the lease of land and the decision of the paramount lessor to re-enter the suit property and the tenant/lessee of land willing to vacate then to whom should possession be delivered? Whether to L & DO or the lessee/landlord (the former).
       Held (per Mohapatra and Brijesh Kumar, JJ.) : Then the question arises to whom the tenants should be directed to deliver possession of the premises ? Ordinarily, in a case where the order of eviction passed by the Controller is confirmed then the landlord is entitled to recover possession of the premises from the tenant. But in the present case, as noted earlier, the order terminating the lease granted by the Union of India in favour of the landlord has been passed and re-entry upon the premises has already been ordered, if possession of the premises has not yet been taken over, it may be due to pendency of the proceedings. In the particular facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that the tenant should deliver possession of the premises to the Union of India represented by L & DO. The appeal is allowed in part and the order passed by the Controller under Section 14(11) of the Act which was confirmed by the appellate authority and the High Court is set aside leaving it open to the respondents to proceed for realisation of compensation, damages or mesne profits for misuser of the property by the tenants, in accordance with law. The appellants are directed to deliver vacant possession of the suit property to the Union of India represented by the L & DO within one month. There will be no order for costs. (Paras 14 & 15)
       Held also (per Dharmadhikari, J.) (Concurring with them) : On determination of the lease and the order of reentry the right of landlord to retain possession has been lost and the paramount lessor has acquired right to obtain possession of the leased land. As a result of the above mentioned subsequent events of which due notice has been taken by this Court, the possession of the suit premises cannot be directed to be handed over to the landlord who has no right in presenti to obtain it even though this Court has upheld the order of eviction against the tenant. The possession of the leased land with suit premises standing over it has, therefore, to be delivered to the paramount lessor. The rights and liabilities inter-se between landlord and tenant and/or between landlord and subsequent transferee from him are not subject-matters of these proceedings. They are at liberty to work out their rights if any by independent action in appropriate Court or forum. The argument advanced on behalf of landlord and the subsequent purchaser that the paramount lessor is a third party to the proceedings under the Act cannot be accepted. The ground of eviction contained in clause (k) of Section 14 read with sub-section (11) of the Act makes the paramount lessor a party to the proceedings and this Court, therefore, is fully justified in directing delivery of possession to the paramount lessor instead of restoring it to the landlord. For the aforesaid reasons I fully agree with the conclusion reached by learned Brother Mohapatra J. that the tenant as the appellant having expressed his desire to deliver the vacant possession of the suit property, the same should be directed to be delivered to the paramount lessor represented by L & DO within two weeks from the date of this order. (Paras 19 to 23)

JUDGMENT

D.P. Mohapatra, J.-Leave is granted.

2. This appeal, filed by the tenants, is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Delhi dated 18th September, 2000 in S.A.O. No. 363 of 1985 dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants herein with certain observations. The operative portion of the judgment is quoted hereunder :

"It was then urged that there is no rationale for the misuser charges demanded by the L&DO. This is really a matter between the L&DO and its lessee.

Moreover, the quantification and apportionment of misuser charges are arithmetical matters of fact. I cannot go into all this in a second appeal. Under the circumstances, there is no option but to dismiss the appeal. The parties will pay the misuser charges in accordance with the order dated 14th August, 1984 passed by the learned Rent Controller. Respondent No. 12, that is, the Union of India through the L&DO should quantify the subsequent misuser charges within a period of two months from today. The appellants should cease and desist from misusing the suit premises with effect from 1st January, 2001, failing which an order of eviction shall be deemed to have been passed against them.

The appeal is dismissed. There will, however, no order as to costs."

3. The appellants are the tenants on the first floor and barsati (hereinafter referred as the suit property ) of P-2, Connaught Circus, previously known as 2/90, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. The suit property was taken on rent from the predecessor in interest of respondents No. 1 to 11, namely Ram Singh, sometime in 1950. The predecessor in interest of respondents No. 1 to 11 had taken the suit property on lease from the Governor General in Council in 1938. The Governor General in Council is now succeeded by the Union of India acting through the Land and Development Officer (for short the L&DO ). It was stipulated in the lease that the leasehold property was to be used for commercial purpose. Despite the stipulation in the lease the lessee i.e. the predecessor in interest of respondents No. 1 to 11 let out the suit property to the appellants for office purpose. The L & DO issued a notice dated 25.10.1968 to Ram Singh enumerating certain breaches in use of the leasehold premises, including misuse of first floor and barsati floors as office and misuse of unauthorized shop measuring 21 x 7 as a tailoring shop. It was specifically stated in the notice that despite the previous notice issued under the L&DO s letter No. 90(2C.C.)/63-LI, dated 9.2.1965 to stop/remove the misuser, the lessee had failed to comply with the notice. Therefore, in consequence of the failure on the part of the lessee to remedy the aforesaid breach the lessor had decided to determine the lease. The relevant portion of the letter dated 25th October, 1968 is extracted as under :

"Please take notice, therefore, that in consequence of your failure to remedy the aforesaid breach the Lessor has been pleased to determine the Lease and re-enter upon the premises with effect from 16.9.68 on & from which date, therefore all your rights and title in the leasehold property in question have ceased.

The entire plot of land forming the subject matter of the relevant Lease Deed and all the buildings standing thereupon including all structures, erections and fittings vest now in the President of India. Shri Bharat Bhushan, an Assistant Engineer of the Land and Development Office, has been directed to take possession of the premises from you and he will call upon you for this purpose on 13/11/68 at 10.30 A.M., and I, hereby call upon you to hand over peacefully the possession of the premises including land, buildings, fittings, fixtures, etc. to him."

4. In the meantime, Ram Singh had filed a petition for eviction of the petitioners under clauses (b), (c) and (k) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred as the Act ), alleging sub-letting and misuser of suit property and breach of condition of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 656

Cases Referred (2)