VERY IMPORTANT POINT
Neither Section 14(1)(k) nor Section 14(11) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 mentions execution of a document of lease in a particular form. Therefore, High Court was wrong in insisting like that of RC for a formal lease deed of land between L&DO and the appellant to attract Sections 14(1)(k) and 14(11).

Headnote:Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958-Sections 14(1)(k) and 14(11)-Agreement of lease between L&DO and appellant for grant of lease of land for execution of premises [for residential purpose]-Appellant constructed building-Let out portion of ground floor for commercial purpose-L&DO issuing notice of forfeiture and re-entry-Appellant filing eviction suit u/s. 14(1)(k) -Dismissed by RC-RCT reversed in appeal, remanded for assessment of compensation u/s 14(11)-RC still held petition not maintainable as there was no execution of a document of lease between L&DO and appellant-RCT reversed in appeal-High Court, however, upheld RC in second appeal-Whether correct? (No)-Appeal allowed-High Court reversed and RCT restored-No need of formal lease RC- Must decide compensation u/s 14(11) only.
Held : On a plain reading of clause (k) of the proviso to section 14 (1) it is clear that the stress is laid on the conduct of the tenant, who has misused or dealt with the premises in a manner contrary to any condition imposed on the landlord by the Government while giving him the lease of the land on which the premises are situate. In the proviso to Section 14(1) are enumerated the grounds on which a landlord can seek recovery of possession of the premises from a tenant. The provision in clause (k) is intended to protect the interest of the landlord who may face termination of the lease and lose the property for breach of conditions imposed by the superior lessor on him while granting the lease of the land. Faced with such situation the landlord is given the right to move the Controller for eviction of the tenant and for recovery of possession of the premises so that he may be saved of the consequences of misuser of the premises and breach of conditions of lease. An opportunity is provided to the tenant to protect himself against threatened eviction from the premises if he complies with the condition imposed on the landlord by any of the authorities referred to in clause (k) of the proviso to section 14(1) and pays to that authority such amount by way of compensation as the Controller may direct. Provision for the purpose is made in sub-section (11) of section 14 of the Act. Neither of the aforementioned two statutory provisions mentions execution of a document of lease in any particular form. The stress is on compliance with the conditions subject to which lease of the property was given to the lessee who is the landlord of the tenant in occupation of the premises. In the case on hand the application filed by the appellant for lease of a plot of land was granted by the officer acting on behalf of the President of India. A registered agreement was entered into between the superior lessor and his lessee in which were incorporated the conditions of lease. It was stated in the document that till such time as a formal document of lease is executed and in absence of such a document the terms and conditions set out therein shall be binding on the lessee and can be enforced in the same manner as if a formal document of lease has been executed between the parties. In pursuance of the said agreement possession of the land was delivered to the lessee and permission was granted by the New Delhi Municipal Committee for construction of a building. A building was constructed and a portion of it was rented out in favour of the respondent herein. In the circumstances there is little scope for doubt that between the superior lessor and the appellant there was an agreement for lease of the land with certain conditions which were binding on the lessee with the consequence of termination of the agreement in case of default in compliance of the terms, and for resumption/ re-entry upon the property on termination. Indeed the superior lessor had issued a notice to the appellant terminating the lease on the ground of misuser of the property and conveying the decision of the President of India to re-enter upon the premises. In the circumstances, the appellant was entitled to file an application for eviction of the tenant in terms of clause (k) of the proviso to section 14 (1) of the Act. The technical plea that since no formal deed of lease had been executed between the President of India and the appellant was not available to the tenant - respondent to raise in the proceeding for eviction in view of the undisputed factual positions as noted earlier; the ARC was clearly in error in declining to proceed under section 14(11) of the Act for determination of compensation to be paid by the tenant to the superior lessor for misuser despite specific direction to that effect in the remand order passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in setting aside the said order of the ARC with the direction to proceed for determination of the compensation for misuser of the premises under section 14(11) of the Act. Consequently it follows that the Judgment of the High Court setting aside the judgment/order of the Tribunal and dismissing the petition for eviction is unsustainable. Accordingly the appeals are allowed with costs. The Judgment of the High Court dated 24th May, 2000 in SAO No.3/2000 is set aside and the Judgment dated 22.11.1999 of the Rent Control Tribunal in R.C.A. No. 127/1997 is restored. Hearing fee assessed at Rs. 10,000/-. (Paras 5, 6 & 7)

JUDGMENT

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

2. These appeals filed by the landlord are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in SAO No. 3/2000 and CMP No. 135/2000 setting aside the judgment of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 22.11.1999 in RCA No. 127/97 and confirming the judgment dated 27.1.1997 of the Additional Rent Controller dismissing the eviction petition filed by the appellant as not maintainable. The premises in question is described as plot No.8, Block No. 48, Shopping Centre, Malcha Marg, Diplomatic Enclave, New Delhi. The appellant was allotted the plot of land by the Union of India on which the premises in question stand. A registered agreement for lease was executed between the President of India through the Land and Development Officer (for short the L&DO") and the appellant on 24th December, 1965 setting out the terms and conditions which were binding on both the parties. In Clause 18 of the agreement it was provided that till the formal lease deed was executed the lessee would be bound by all the covenants and conditions in the said format contained in like manner and with like consequences in all respects as if the lease had actually been executed. In clause 21 of the Agreement it was stated that in case of any breach or default in performance of any of the terms of the agreement, it shall be lawful for President or any officer in his employ on his behalf to enter into and upon the said Land and Building and take and retain possession of the said land and of all such buildings, erections and materials as may be found upon the said land for the absolute use of the President and thereupon the agreement shall be void. Thereafter the appellant applied for sanction of plan for erection of the building on the plot and on the plan being sanctioned by the New Delhi Municipal Committee, the appellant raised the construction upon the land with two commercial shops on the ground floor and a residential quarter on the first floor. One such shop covering an area of 780 sq. ft. on the ground floor of the building was let out to the respondent vide rent deed 24th December, 1976 for commercial purpose at a rental of Rs. 2340/- per month.

3. The Settlement Commissioner, Land and Development Office of the Ministry of Works and Housing issued the notice dated 24th September, 1983 to the appellant alleging that there were breaches of the agreement to the effect that the ground floor was being used as post office and office of Usha Intercontinental General Sales Pvt. Ltd.; that the breaches had not been removed so far in spite of the notice given by the lessor vide letter No.LIV/9/48(S-8)/83 dated 22.3.1983. It was further stated in the notice that in the circumstances the lessor had re-entered the said premises in exercise of the powers conferred on him by clause XXI of the indenture of lease w.e.f. 25.7.1983. The lessee-appellant herein was directed to handover peacefully possession of the premises including the land, building, fittings and fixtures etc. to the Assistant Engineer Mr. Gandotra in the Development Office. After receipt of the said notice from the Assistant Settlement Commissioner the appellant by the notice dated 24.10.1983 terminated the agreement in favour of the respondent with immediate effect and required him to vacate the premises and handover vacant possession of the same within 15 days of receipt of the notice. Since the tenant-respondent herein failed to vacate the premises the appellant filed the petition No.207/87 under section 14(1)(k) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short the Act ) seeking eviction of the respondent on the ground of misuser of the premises in question. The Additional Rent Controller (for short the ARC ), Delhi by order dated 27th January, 1997 dismissed the eviction petition filed by the appellant. On appeal the Rent Control Tribunal by judgment dated 22.11.99, set aside the order of the ARC and remanded the matter to ARC to proceed to determine the damag

Click Here to Read the rest of this document