Back
1992 Supreme(Del) 516
High Court Of Delhi
KAMLA MARWAH - Appellant
Versus
KAPUR FABRICS - Respondent
SECOND APPEAL 2 of 1978
Decided On : 10/28/1992
K.N.Kataria, P.K.Jaitely
A landlord is entitled to evict a tenant who has breached the terms of the lease deed and the conditions imposed by the government by using the premises for a purpose other than that permitted under the lease, even if the government is willing to temporarily regularize the misuse.
Headnote:
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Section 14(1)(k) - Eviction of Tenant - Misuse of Premises - Interpretation of Lease Deed - Conditions Imposed by Government - Temporary Regularization of Misuse - Final Decision of Government - Landlord's Right to Legitimate User.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, the owner of the demised premises, sought eviction of the respondent tenant under Clauses (e), (d), (h), and (k) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The appellant alleged that the tenancy premises were let for residential purposes but were being used for commercial purposes without her consent, and that the tenant had acquired vacant possession of another premises. The tenant denied the allegations and asserted that the letting was for commercial purposes from the inception of the tenancy.
Finding of the Court:
The lower courts found that the letting purpose was not exclusively residential, as the lease deed allowed the tenant to use the premises for office purposes with the government's permission and that the tenant was liable to pay any penalty imposed by local or governmental authorities. The courts also found that the tenant had been using the premises for commercial purposes in contravention of the lease deed and the conditions imposed by the government, but that the Land and Development Office (Landdo) was willing to temporarily regularize the misuse on payment of damages.
Issues: 1. Whether the letting purpose was exclusively residential, as claimed by the appellant, or whether it included commercial use, as claimed by the respondent. 2. Whether the tenant's use of the premises for commercial purposes constituted a breach of the lease deed and the conditions imposed by the government. 3. Whether the Landdo's willingness to temporarily regularize the misuse barred the appellant's eviction claim under Section 14(1)(k) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the lease deed, when read as a whole, did not restrict the letting purpose to residential use only. Clause 18 of the lease deed allowed the tenant to use the premises for office purposes with the government's permission and the obligation to pay any penalties imposed by local or governmental authorities. 2. The court found that the tenant's use of the premises for commercial purposes without the appellant's consent and in contravention of the conditions imposed by the government constituted a breach of the lease deed and the conditions imposed by the government. 3. The court held that the Landdo's willingness to temporarily regularize the misuse did not bar the appellant's eviction claim under Section 14(1)(k) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The court reasoned that the Landdo's willingness to temporarily regularize the misuse was not a permanent condonation of the breach and that the appellant was entitled to the legitimate and permitted user of the premises.
Final Decision: The court upheld the lower courts' findings that the letting purpose was not exclusively residential and that the tenant had breached the lease deed and the conditions imposed by the government by using the premises for commercial purposes. However, the court remanded the case to the Rent Control Tribunal to issue a fresh notice to the Landdo to state its position firmly and finally regarding the continued misuse of the premises. The court directed that if the Landdo conveyed a firm stand that it was not willing to condone the misuse permanently, the tenant would be required to stop the misuse forthwith or face eviction.
( 1 ) THE appellant, who is owner/landlady of the demised premises, comprising of drawing-cum-dining room, two bed rooms with attached toilets, kitchen, garage on the ground floor, bed room with attached toilet and servant room above garage on the first floor, built on plot No. D-29, Defence Colony, New Delhi, had sought eviction of the respondent No. I/tenant by invoking the provisions of Clauses (e), (d), (h) and (k) of the proviso the Section 14 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short the Act ). As per averments in the eviction petition, the tenancy premises formed part of a residential house, and had been let to the respondent for residential purposes, but no one was residing in the premises and further that the tenant had acquired vacant possession of a quarter for residence, and had converted the letting purpose of residsntial into commerical, by using the demised premises as a show-room of furnishing fabrics. and boutique, without prior and written consent of the landlady, and that this user was otherwise detrimental to the interest of the landlady as she had received notices from D. D. A. threatening action under Section 29 of the Delhi Development Act, and the , Land and Development Office also threatened to levy penalty for converting, the user,. and the Municipal Corporation had threatened to levy additional house tax. Besides, it was alleged that the premises were let to the tenant for residence of one Ashok Kapur, but neither the tenant nor any member of his family was residing, and the tenant had otherwise also acquired vacant possession of another premises. On the basis of these allegations, the appellant sought eviction on the grounds covered by Clauses (e), (d), and (h) of the proviso to Section 14 (1) of the Act. She further alleged that notwithstanding previous notice, the tenant had dealt with the premises in a manner contrary to the conditions imposed on the landlady by the Government of India, through Land and Development Office, (Landdo for short), who are the lessor, in respect of leasehold rights of the land, on which the house was built, and further that the user was incontravention of the provisions of the Delhi Development Act, thus rendering the tenant liable to eviction under Clause (k) of proviso to Section 14 (i) of the Act
( 2 ) THE stand taken by the respondent was of denial of the allegations that the premises were let out for residential purposes. It was asserted on the other hand that the letting was for commercial purposes, and the demised premises were being used from the inception of the tenancy as such, and in face of this the landlady could not seek eviction by invoking Clauses (e), (d) and (h), which postulate letting for residential purpose.
( 3 ) IN so far as the ground covered by Clause (k) was concerned, the plea was that of complete denial of receipt of any notice from the superior lessor of the landlady for stopping the misuser or conversion of the user; arid consequently this ground also being not available.
( 4 ) THE Addl. Rent Controller on a reading of the lease deed between the parties dated 1. 8. 1969 (Ex. AW5/2), came to the conclusion that by virtue of Clause 18 of the said lease deed, there was a permission from the landlady to the tenant to utilise the premises, in cases he so wanted, wholly or partially, for office purposes, and that the only stipulation was that the tenant shall have to get permission from the Government, and shall also be liable to pay any penalty that might be levied by local or governmental authorities. According to the Addl. Rent Controller this overrode the earlier Clause 9 which reads as under: "that the lessee use the premises for his residence only. "
( 5 ) HE, therefore, upheld the plea of the tenant that the ground covered by Clauses (e), (d) and (h) were not available.
( 6 ) IN so far as the ground covered byclause (k)wasconcerned, the Addl. Rent Controller thought it fit to issue notice to the Landdo in view of the
