JUDGMENT

This appeal by special leave is by a person who was put into possession of the premises in question by the principal tenant who obtained the land from the Government under a perpetual lease deed. By the impugned judgment, the High Court held that for the periods ending respectively on 14-1-1979 and 21-6-1981, the appellant was liable to pay Rs. 1,17,761.73 and Rs. 3,57,391.61 as misuse charges. In default of payment of these two amounts, the High Court held that the appellant was liable to be evicted from the premises.

2. Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Bhat, contends that the misuser by the appellant had stopped in 1981. This, he submits, is clear from an affidavit filed by the Government in October, 1982. He, therefore, submits that there has been no misuser since 1981. Counsel further submits that although the appellant is liable to pay misuse charges for the period up to 21-6-1981, his liability is only for such misuse charges as are determined by the competent authority, namely, the Controller as provided under S. 14(11) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Such a determination has not been made. The High Court, counsel says, wrongly held that the misuse charges claimed by the Government had been determined by the Rent Control Tribunal. The Tribunal had not made any such determination. In fact, the High Court was merely endorsing the claim of the Government in respect of the misuse charges. The Act does not postulate that the misuse charges can be unilaterally determined by the Government and that the person in possession of the land under a sub-lease from the original lessee is bound to pay it.

3. Mr. Mahajan appearing for the Union of India is not in a position to say whether the amounts ordered to be paid by the High Court had been determined by the statutory authority or whether the misuser has stopped, and if so when. We appreciate Mr. Mahajans difficulty. The records made available to him do not clearly disclose these facts, apart from certain vague averments in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Government of India.

4. Mr. Sodhi appearing for the original lessee submits that the lessee is entitled to evict the appellant by reason of his misuser. He submits that the appellant continues to misuse the premises contrary to the present submissions on behalf of the appellant. The amount payable by the appellant, counsel submits, is a matter for the concerned authority to decide.

5. S. 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 provides that misuser is one of the grounds on which a tenant is liable to be evicted. Cl. (k) of sub-sec. (1) of S. 14 reads as under:-

"(k) 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 while giving him a lease of the land on which the premises are situate;"

It is not in dispute that the premises in question is reserved for residential purposes and any user for non-residential purposes amounts to a misuser falling within the ambit of S. 14. It is also not disputed that the appellant had been called upon by the original lessee by notice to desist from using the building for non-residential purpose.

6. Sub-section (11) of S. 14 reads:

"(11). No order for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made on the ground specified in Cl. (k) of the proviso to sub-sec. (1), if the tenant, within such time as may be specified in this behalf by the Controller, complies with the condition imposed on the landlord by any of the authorities referred to, in that clause or pays to the authority such amount by way of compensation as the Controller may direct."

This sub-section prevents eviction if the tenant has complied with the condition imposed on the landlord by the Government. The sub-section also requires the person in possession, namely, the sub-lessee to pay to the authority such amount by way of compens