Back
High Court Of Delhi
S.P.ARORA - Appellant
Versus
AJIT SINGH - Respondent
SECOND APPEAL 169D of 1962
Decided On : 01/09/1970
DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958 - SECTION 14(1)(C) AND (K) - EVICTION OF TENANT - GROUNDS - USER OF PREMISES CONTRARY TO CONDITION IMPOSED ON LANDLORD BY LESSOR - WAIVER OF RIGHT TO EVICT - ESTOPPEL - CROWN GRANTS ACT, 1895 (XV OF 1895) - SECTION 3 - VALIDITY OF PROVISIONS, RESTRICTIONS, CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS IN CROWN OR GOVERNMENT GRANTS.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a lessee of a plot of land from the Delhi Improvement Trust, let out the first floor of the house built on the land to the respondent for residential purposes. Subsequently, the respondent took on rent the ground floor also for commercial purposes. The appellant sought to evict the respondent from the ground floor on the grounds that the respondent was using the premises for a purpose other than that for which it was let out and that the respondent had used the premises in a manner contrary to the condition imposed on the appellant by the Delhi Development Authority, the successor of the Delhi Improvement Trust, in the lease deed for the land.
Finding of the Court:
The Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal held that the ground floor was not used by the respondent for a purpose other than that for which it was let out and that the appellant was estopped from seeking eviction of the respondent on the ground that the respondent had used the premises in a manner contrary to the condition imposed on the appellant in the lease deed for the land, as the appellant had himself let out the premises for a commercial purpose in breach of the condition in the lease deed.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondent was using the ground floor for a purpose other than that for which it was let out? 2. Whether the appellant was estopped from seeking eviction of the respondent on the ground that the respondent had used the premises in a manner contrary to the condition imposed on the appellant in the lease deed for the land?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The evidence on record showed that the respondent had installed a factory in the ground floor shortly after the ground floor was taken on rent and the same had been working since then under a licence. The Rent Controller and the Tribunal were justified in concluding that the ground floor was not used by the respondent for a purpose other than that for which it was let out. 2. The provision in clause (k) of the proviso to section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which enables the landlord to seek eviction of the tenant if the tenant uses the premises in a manner contrary to the condition imposed on the landlord in the lease deed for the land, is meant for the benefit of the landlord. The landlord can waive the right conferred by the provision and agree to an user by the tenant in a manner contrary to the condition in the lease deed for the land, taking a risk as regards the forfeiture of the lease by the lessor-Authority. Such an action of the landlord cannot be regarded as one against the provision in clause (k), and there is, therefore, no question of any estoppel against the statute.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed.
( 1 ) THIS Second Appeal has been filedagainst the order of Shri Pritam Singh Pittar, Rent Controltribunal, Delhi, dated 22/05/1962, in Rent Control Appealno. 486 of 1961, dismissing the said appeal and confirming theorder of Shri B. L. Mago, Rent Controller, Delhi, dated 2 7/10/1961, whereby the Rent Controller dismissed the application filed by S. P. Arora, appellant herein, under section 14 (1) (c) and (k) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, prayingfor the evication of Ajit Singh, the respondent herein from thesuit premises.
( 2 ) ON 6/05/1943, the father of the appellant herein obtained a perpetual lease (Exhibit A-9) in respect of certain landfrom the Delhi Improvement Trust. One of the terms ofthe lease was that the lessee should erect upon the said landwithin one year from the date of the lease and thereafter atall times during the terms of the lease maintain on the land agood and substantial residential house. Another term was thatthe lessee should not use the said land and the building thereon during the term of the lease for any other purpose than forthe purpose of residential use without the consent in writingof the lessor, and it was stipulated that the lease shall becomevoid if the land is used for any purpose other than the purposefor which the lease was granted for being a purpose subsequently approved by the lessor. The lease contained certain additional covenants, one of which was that no forfeiture or re-entryshall be effected for non-observance or non-performance of thecovenants in the lease until the lessor has served on the lesseea notice in writing :
" (A) specifying the particular breach complainedof: and
(B) if the breach is capable of remedy, requiringthe lessee to remedy the breath, and the lessee failswithin a reasonable time from the date of service of thenotice to remedy the breach, if it is capable of remedy;and in the event of forfeiture or re-entry the lessor mayin its discretion relieve against forfeiture on such termsand conditions as it thinks proper. "
( 3 ) IT was decited in the lease deed that the grant of the lease wasmade under the authority of the Crown, and that the provisionsof the Crown Grants Act (XV of 1895) shall apply to thegrant.
( 4 ) THEREAFTER, the appellant built a house on the land. In April,1951, the respondant herein took on rent the first floor of thehouse from the appellant herein for residential purposes, the rentbeing Rs. 110. 00 per mensem. The rent was subsequently increased to Rs. 121. 00 per mensern. In September, 1953, the respondent took on rent the ground floor also from the appellantfor a rent of Rs. 115. 00 per mensern. According to the appellant. the ground floor was let out for residential purposes, whileaccording to the respondent, the ground floor was let out forcommercial purposes. In April, 1954, the respondent obtainedconnection for electrical power, and in June, 1955, he obtaineda licence for running a factory on the groundfloor (vide RW 2 ). If appears that the respondent began to run a factory knownas Bangson Electronic Industries on the ground floor.
( 5 ) THE Delhi Improvement Trust was succeeded by the Delhidevelopment authority. The said Authority issued a notice (Exhibit A-1) on 11/09/1959, to the appellant inwhich it was stated that the appellant herein, as a lessee of theplot of land, was entitled to use the land and the buildingthereon for the purpose of residential use only, that he. however, permitted the same to be used for purposes of a factorywhich was contrary to the terms of the lease, and that as thelease was liable to be determined for the breach of the termsof the lease, the appellant was required to discontinue the saiduse of the land and the building thereon, The appellant wasalso required to show cause why the lease be not determinedand the land together with the building be not re-entered uponwithout any compensation. The appellant sent a reply (Exhibita-8) on 15/09/1959, stating that he let out the build
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
