The provisions of Section 14 (11) of the DRC Act require the Controller to give fresh notice to the D.D.A. and determine the compensation payable to the D.D.A. for the past misuser of the property before passing an eviction order.

( 1 ) IN all these cases same questions of fact and laware involved. Hence, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ). The appellants are occupying different portions of propertyno. 1 SA/36, Western Extension Area, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, as tenants. under the respondent. The eviction petitions were brought against thesetenants by the landlord on the ground of eviction covered by Sec. 14 (l) (k)of the Delhi Rent Control Act ( the Act ).

( 3 ). The two Courts below have given findings that premises havebeen let out for commercial purposes. It is not in dispute that according tothe terms of the lease under which the property is held by the respondent,the property could be used only for residential purposes. The ground ofeviction covered by Clause (k) was upheld by both the Courts and there isno challenge to the said findings of the two Courts below. Clause (k) readsas follows:

"that the tenant has, notwithstanding previous notice, used ordealt with the premises in a manner contrary to any conditionimposed on the landlord by the Govt. or the Delhi Developmentauthority or the Municipal Corporation of Delhi while giving hima lease of the land on which the premises are situate. "

( 4 ). The question in all these cases is the form in which the. ordershould have been made keeping in view Sec. 14 (11) of the Act which reads :

"no order for the recovery of possession of any premises shall bemade on the ground specified in Clause (k) of the proviso to Sub -. section (1), if the tenant, within such time as may be specified inthis behalf by the Controller, complies with the condition imposedon the landlord by any of the authorities referred to in that clauseor pays to that authority such amount by way of compensation asthe Controller may direct. "

( 5 ) THIS particular clause has led to lot of litigation between thelandlords and the tenants and up-to-date no solution could be found whichcould give effect to this particular clause in a proper manner. Beforecoming into force of the DRC Act and the Delhi Dev. Act, leases were. being granted by the Land and Development Office and the authorities were-perhaps more liberal in the matter of violation of the terms of the lease andthe residential premises were being converted into commercial premises asthe need of the population in Delhi grew. The Rent Control Act wasenforced in Delhi for the first time in 1952 and thereafter in 1958. In orderto check the haphazard growth of Delhi, the Delhi Dev. Act was broughtinto force in 1962 which contemplated preparation of the Master Planwhich would identify different parts of Delhi and prescribe user of thoseparts of Delhi for particular purposes. The Delhi Dev. Act also contemplated framing of Zonal Dev. Plans which were to indicate particularly theuser of buildings and land in a particular Zone. The Legislature in itswisdom provided for Sec. 14 and Sec. 29 in the said Act to see that anyviolation of the Master Plan or Zonal Dev. Plan with regard to the user ofthe particular land or building should not go unpunished. It was made apenal offence to use any land or building for a purpose other than mentionedin the Master Plan or Zonal Dev. Plan. The Legislature could have easilyomitted certain provisions of Section 14 (11) so that if any tenant is foundusing a particular premises for a purpose in violation of the terms of thelease granted by the Govt. authorities then he should have either been madeto face the eviction if he was not to stop user of such premises in conformitywith the terms of the lease. But the Legislature did not. Weprovisions with regard to the payment of compensation as the Controllermay direct which led the Courts to interpret this provision. When theauthority was to agree to accept compensation, the Controller was requiredto determine the said amount of compensation and could also proportionately distribute the liability between the landlord and the tenantwhere the landlord initially had permitted the misuser.

( 6