( 1 ) PLOT No. 12 Block No. 10, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi was leased out to Ratan Lal in terms of a lease deed dated 24th July, 1953. Ratan Lal raised the structure. It was agreed that the lessee would not use the said land and buildings erected thereon for any other purpose than for the purpose of a residential house without the consent in writing of the lessor ; provided the lease would become void if the land was used for any purpose other than that for which the lease was granted not being a purpose subsequently approved by the lessor. Ratan Lal let out a portion of the said property to Narain Dass, respondent, on a monthly rent of Rs. 63. 00. The petitioner purchased the suit house bearing No 6778 on plot No. 12 Block No. 10 in 1961 and the respondent attorned to him as a tenant. The respondent has been carrying on the work of dairy in the premises in suit. The Delhi Development Author ity objected to the use of the premises for a dairy as it was a commercial use and contrary to the terms of the lease. The petitioner served a notice requiring the respondent to stop the misuser and filed an eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (k) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the Act ), which was dismissed for want of proper notice. The petitioner served a fresh notice dated 26th May, 1977 requiring the respondent to stop the use of the premises contrary to the terms of the lease. Finding no response, the petitioner on 4 June, 1977 filed a petition for eviction under Section 14 (1 ) (k) of the Act. The Delhi Development Authority was also made a party. It filed a written statement requiring the misuser to be stopped otherwise the lease was liable to be cancelled. On 17th September 1979. the Controller held that the ground of eviction under Section 14 (l) (k) of the Act stood proved. The Additional Controller therefore gave a notice under Section 14 (11) of the Act to the Delhi Development Authority requiring it to explain whether the premises in dispute could be regularised temporarily or permanently and if so, on what terms and conditions. The Delhi Development Authority in its reply dated 6th October, 1980 stated that the question for permanent commercialisation of the premises in question did not arise till the zonal plan of the area was approved by the Central Government, that the premises in suit were residential as per terms of the lease deed and that if the same were used for any purpose other than the purpose of a residential house, the lease was liable to be cancelled. The Delhi Development Authority has stated that for use of the premises for commercial purposes, the application, if any, may be made by the landlord which would be considered under the rules. Such rules if any have not been brought to my notice by the counsel for the Delhi Development Authority. The respondent-tenant also raised various objections but by the impugned order dated 6th December, 1980 the Controller directed the respondent to deposit the estimated amount of Rs. 14,11 1. 15 as compensation for past breaches within a month from the date of the order failing which an eviction order would be deemed to have been passed against him. As regards future breaches the Controller directed the petitioner-landlord to approach the Delhi Development Authority for regularisation of the misuser. It was further ordered that the petitioner-landlord may get the proceedings revived, if necessary. The petitioner has challenged this order on the ground that the same is without jurisdiction, contrary to provisions of Section 14 (l) (k) and 14 (11) of the Act and that question of permanent regularisation does not arise as the Delhi Development Authority in its reply has refused to do so. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order is in two portions (1) payment of compensation for past breaches and (2) direction to the landlord to approach the Delhi Development Authority for regularisation with liberty for revi