The tenant is required to use the premises in conformity with the conditions of the lease, and the landlord is not estopped from claiming possession even if he himself was guilty of letting the premises for a purpose contrary to the conditions of the lease.

( 1 ) THE present petition is directed against the judgment dated March 15, 1984 of Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi. The said judgment modified the order dated 7th December, 1983 passed by the Rent Controller in proceedings under Section 14 (l) (k) of Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the Act ). The respondent Bhagwan Singh has since expired and is now represented by his legal heirs.

( 2 ) THEBRIEFFACTSARETHATAPPELLANTPAMANLAL filed petition foreviction against the respondent with respect to the suit property as REFERRED TO to in the petition for eviction. The grounds of eviction were based on the provisions under Clauses (a) and (k) of the proviso to Sub-section I of Section 14 of the Act. The petition was contested and preliminary objection was taken that no notice terminating the contractual tenancy had been served. It was alleged that the appellant-landlord had deprived the respondent of the user of the tenanted premises and that the room was also let out to the respondent of which forcible possession was taken.

( 3 ) SMT. Kanwal Inder, the learned Controller vide order dated December 8, 1982 held that the petition was not bad for partial eviction and the notice of demand had been duly served, ltwas concluded thatthe ground of eviction on non-payment of rent was available and the order passed under Section 15 (1) had been complied with and, therefore, benefit of Sub-section 2 of Section 14 of the Act was awarded to the respondent. As far as Clause (k) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act was concerned, the Court held that the property was being used contrary to the terms of the lease imposed upon the respondent and, therefore, the ground of eviction was available. Notice under Sub-section 11 to Section 14 of the Act was directed to be issued. The petition was thereafter listed before Smt. Manju Goel, Rent Controller, Delhi who vide order dated 7th December, 1983 passed an order of eviction. It was held that the respondent-tenant had used the premises contrary to the conditions imposed on the appellant-landlord by the Government of India while granting him lease of the land. The Land and Development Office had filed its reply before the Rent Controller wherein it was stated that the lease in respect of the suit property had been granted for residential purpose and the breach of the misuser could be condoned on purely temporary basis on the payment of charges, as fixed by the Government which was actually postponement of action till breach was finally removed. The learned Controller REFERRED TO to the judgment of this Court as reported in Prithvi Raj v. Nirmal Multani, 1980 Rajdhani Law Reporter 343 to reiterate the proposition that where the tenant had taken the premises for commercial purposes and the Landdo had declined to condone the misuser permanently, there was no option for the tenant but to be evicted from the premises in question. Following that judgment, the Controller passed an order of eviction against the respondent in respect of the suit premises. The respondent-tenant felt aggrieved by that order and filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal.

( 4 ) THE appeal was partly allowed and it was directed that the respondent shall pay to the appellant or deposit in the Trial Court the temporary misuser charges till 14th July, 1984 amounting to Rs. 8319. 62 within two months or stop the misuser within the same period. In default of complying with this condition, an order of eviction was deemed to have been passed against the respondent. The Tribunal did not consider the import of misuser of the premises but merely determined that the Land and Development Office himself had not come to any such conclusion and either of the party could not suffer on that count. The learned Judge stated the proposition that the purpose of Clause (k) of the proviso to Sub-section I of Section 14 of the Act was that the land user as per terms of the lease was to be adhered to and i