( 1 ) THE only challenge in the present writ petition is to the order of re-entry which had been issued on 24/6/1972 by the Land and Development Office, Delhi.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts are that the petitioner had purchased a plot of land No. 72, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi under the provisions of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954.

( 3 ) AFTER the building plans had been approved by the Municipal Authorities, a 21 storey bungalow was constructed on the said land. The trouble for the petitioner arose when on 20/11/1969 he let out the said premises for residential-cum-office purposes to respondent No. 2, M/s. Curewel (India) Limited at a monthly rent of Rs. 2300. 00.

( 4 ) THE petitioner received a letter dated 20/3/1970 from the Ministry of Rehabilitation wherein it was stated that the letting out of the said bungalow residence-cum-ofnce purposes amounted to a contravention of condition (vi) of the terms and conditions on which the land had been leased to the petitioner. The said condition reads as under :-

"the lessee doth to the intent that the burdon of the covenants may run with the said land and may bind any permitted assignee there of hereby covenant with the Lessor as follows :- (vi) not without the written consent of the Chief Commissioner, Delhi, to carry on or permit to be carried on, on the said land and building erected thereon during the said lease any trade or business whatsoever or use the same or permit the same to be used for any purpose other than that of a single storeyed building consisting. of one or two residential flats in all, with a barsati on top as may be approved for the locality or as provided in the building already on the said land ;the petitioner sent a. reply dated 8/3/1970 which was followed by letters dated 31/5/1970 and 8/7/1970 and, inter aha, contended that there had been no breach of the aforesaid Clause (vi) of the lease deed. The petitioner also sent a cheque to the respondent for the ground rent but vide letter dated 15/7/1971 the said cheque was returned to the petitioner.

( 5 ) THE petitioner then received a letter dated 24/6/1972 from the Land and Development Officer. Delhi whereby the petitioner was intimated that re-entry had been effected by the first respondent and it was stated therein that all the buildings, structures etc. On the said plot of land now stood vested in the President of India, An officer of the Land and Developmentoffice was also asthorised to take over the physical possession of the premises in question.

( 6 ) THE petitioner then sent a letal notice under Section 80 Civil Procedure Code. According to the petitioner no action was taken thereon but on 16th March, 1973 a notice under Section 4 (1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 was sent to the petitioner. In the said notice it was, inter alia, stated that the petitioner was in unauthorised possession of the property in question and that he should show cause as to why he should not be evicted.

( 7 ) ON the receipt of the aforesaid notice, the petitioner sent a notice terminating the tenancy of Curewel (India) Limited who/was asked to vacate the premises and hand over the possession to the petitioner. On 26/7/1972 the petitioner wrote to the respondent informing it that a notice terminating the tenancy had been served on the tenant and that the petitioner will also be taking steps for the eviction of the said tenant under the provision of Delhi Rent Control Act and Section 14 (1) (K) read with Section 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act in particular.

( 8 ) THE petitioner then filed, on 6/9/1972, a petition for eviction of the tenant on the ground contained in Sections 14 (1) (k)and 14 (1) (e ). In the mean time, it appears that Delhi Development Authority also launched prosecution against the petitioner on account of the alleged violation of the master plan. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition challenging