A lessee is liable to pay misuse charges for the period during which the premises are used for a purpose that is prohibited by the lease deed. However, the lessee may be relieved from the liability to pay misuse charges if the lessee takes immediate steps to remedy the breach.

SUNANDA BHANDARE, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner constructed a double storey house on a plot of land given on lease to the petitioner vide lease deed dt. 28th Dec. , 1960 entered into between the petitioner and the President of India. On 5th July, 1967 this house was given on rent by the petitioner to the National Co-operative Consumers Federation Limited, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as Federation) a semi government body for residential-cum-office purposes. On 29th Sept. , 1969 the petitioner wrote a letter to the Federation withdrawing the permission to use the premises for office purposes. On 20th March 1970 the Land and Development Officer, New Delhi sent a notice to the petitioner stating therein that the premises were being misused in breach and contravention of Clause I (vi) of the lease deed dt. 28th Dec. , 1960 and, therefore, the petitioner was required to remedy the said breach within 30 days of the receipt of the notice. Since the petitioner received this notice from the Land and Development Officer the petitioner wrote another letter on 13th April, 1970 to the Federation to hand over vacant possession to the petitioner. Again another letter was sent by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner to the petitioner on llth May, 1970 wherein the petitioner was informed that the use of the premises for office purposes up to 14th July, 1970 would be regularised on payment of misuse charges. This notice was followed by another notice dt. 25th Nov. , 1970 wherein the petitioner was required to pay the amount of misuse charges within 30 days. On 23rd Dec. , 1970 the petitioner met the Assistant Settlement Commissioner and requested that in view of the fact that in spite of the legal notices sent by the petitioner the Federation had not stopped the misuse, action against it be taken by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner. However, on 2nd Feb. , 1971 the petitioner received a notice from the Assistant Settlement Commissioner to show cause within 30 days as to why the property should not be re-entered. The petitioner on 3rd March, 1971 wrote to the Assistant Settlement Commissioner to extend the time for submitting his reply to the show cause notice for the reasons stated in the said letter. Thereafter, on 2nd September 1971 the petitioner was informed that the lessor had been constrained to exercise his right of re-entry and re-entered upon the premises and that the Assistant Engineer of the Land and Development Office, New Delhi had been directed to take over physical possession of the said premises from the petitioner on 7th Sept. , 1971. These four notices dt. llth May, 1970, 25th Nov. , 1970, 2nd Feb. , 1971 and 2nd Sept. , 1971 imposing misuse charges and ordering re-entry in the premises have been challenged in this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution.

( 2 ) IT was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the premises had not been misused by the petitioner because as per the lease deed the premises could not be used for business and trading purpose and the use of the premises by the Federation for office-cum-residence purposes did not amount to misuse. The Federation was not indulging in any trading or business activities and, therefore, there was no misuse/furthermore, it was contended that as soon as the petitioner realised that the premises could not be used even for office purposes he immediately revoked the earlier permission given to the tenant to use it for office purposes and also sent a legal notice to the Federation informing them to stop the misuse and also asked the Assistant Settlement Commissioner to take appropriate action against the Federation. It was, therefore, submitted that since the petitioner had taken immediate steps to remedy the misuse within reasonable time he was not liable to pay misuse charges and no ground for re-entry was made out.

( 3 ) ON behalf of the respondent, it was contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner had given these premises to the Federation

Click Here to Read the rest of this document