A tenant is liable to pay compensation to the landlord for misusing the premises and breaching the conditions imposed by the Government on the landlord, but the controller has the discretion to apportion the responsibility for the breach between the landlord and the tenant.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal from the order of the rentcontrol tribunal dated 2/11/1979.

( 2 ). The appellant Prithvi Raj is a tenant on the ground floor ofhouse No. 66 Babar Road, New Delhi. He carries on business of sale ofbooks under the name and style of Hind Book House. On 15/04/1968 hetook the premises on rent from the landlady, Nirmal Multani, the respondent. A lease deed was executed. The rate of rent was agreed atrs. 750. 00per month. The tenant paid advance rent of 6 months. In terms of thelease deed the premises let to the tenant consisted of the ground floor hall. In additional to this he was given the right to keep a shop window 6 x 9 feetin the front verandah for display of books. He was also allowed to put asign board on the common wall. But it was expressly provided in the leasethat front room, verandah, bath room and front court yard shall not formpart of the demised premises. The tenant however was given the right ofpassage from the front and use of the verandah for the limited purpose ofkeeping a show window of 6x9 feet.

( 3 ). Though the lease was for a period of 11 months with an option tothe tenant to extend it for a further period of three years very soon disputesarose between the landlady and the tenant. She served three notices on thetenant requiring him to stop the misuser of the premises. The tenant wasselling books in the premises. He is a bookseller by profession. The land onwhich the house stands was taken by the landlady from the Governor-General-in-Council in 1939 for the purpose of residence. The perpetual leasedated 1/07/1939 stipulates that "the lessee will not without such consent (of the lessor) as aforesaid use the said premises or permit the same to be usedfor any purpose other than that of a residence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "

( 4 ). In her letters dated 13/10/1968, 7/04/1969 and 23rdmay, 1969 the landlady asked the tenant to stop the misuse of the premises. The tenant did not. On 24/07/1969, the landlady brought an ejectmentpetition against the tenant. She pleaded three grounds of ejectment. Onewas non-payment of rent under clause (a) of the proviso to S. 14 (1) of thedelhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the Act ). The second was under clause (c),namely, that the tenant was using the premises for a purpose other than thatfor which they were let without obtaining the consent of the landlady. Thethird was the ground under clause (k), namely :

"that the tenant has, notwithstanding previous notice, used ordealt with the premises in a manner contrary to any condition imposed on the landlord by the Government or the Delhi Developmentauthority or the Municipal Corporation of Delhi while giving him a lease of the land on which the premises are situated. "

( 5 ). The additional rent controller by judgment dated 30th October1976 ordered the eviction of the tenant both under Section 14 (1) (a) and (k)of the Act. Claim made under clause (c) he dismissed.

( 6 ). From the decision of the controller the tenant appealed to the renttribunal. The tribunal by order dated 2/11/1979 dismissed theappeal. He affirmed the order of eviction on the grounds of clause (a) andclause (k ). Though he too ordered eviction he however) imposed certainconditions on which it was possible for the tenant to continue to remain inthe premises. I shall return to these conditions a little later.

( 7 ). It will be convenient here to refer to another proceedings betweenthe parties. The tenant in his own turn made an application to the controller for determination of the standard rent. The controller dismissed hisapplication on 30/10/1976. On appeal the tribunal by order dated 2/11/1979, fixed the standard rent at Rs. 532. 30 with effect from May 1, 1973. Accepting that the premises were let for a commercial purposethe rent was reduced from the agreed rent of Rs. 750. 00 to Rs. 532-30. Thiswas the outcome of these proceedings.

( 8 ). Counsel for the parties agree that in view of the determination ofthe standard rent