Back
High Court Of Delhi
AMRIK CHAND - Appellant
Versus
HARBANS SINGH - Respondent
SECOND APPEAL 92 of 1968
Decided On : 05/25/1970
DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958 - SECTION 14(1)(C) - EVICTION OF TENANT - CHANGE OF USER - ENTIRE PREMISES LET OUT MUST BE USED FOR A PURPOSE OTHER THAN THAT FOR WHICH THEY WERE LET.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute related to three rooms and a verandah in a Government-built property allotted to Amrik Chand in 1954. In 1955, an agreement purporting to be a partnership deed was executed between Amrik Chand and Harbans Singh, and the latter was put in possession of the said three rooms and verandah. Subsequently, disputes arose between them, and Amrik Chand filed a Civil Suit in 1957 for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts against Harbans Singh. The trial court held that the relationship of the parties was that of partners, but on appeal, the decision was reversed, and the suit was dismissed. On 12th August 1964, Amrik Chand filed a petition under section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, for eviction of Harbans Singh, alleging misuser of the premises and non-payment of rent. The Rent Controller held that the premises were let to Harbans Singh for commercial-cum-residential purposes and that he did not misuse the same. The Rent Controller also fixed the standard rent for the premises at Rs. 103.00 per month. Both parties filed appeals against the order of the Rent Controller. The Tribunal reduced the standard rent to Rs. 45.00 per month. The landlord filed a second appeal challenging the order of the Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Tribunal erred in reducing the standard rent and that the standard rent fixed by the Rent Controller at Rs. 103.00 per month was correct. The High Court also held that the Tribunal erred in holding that there was no user of the premises by the tenant for a purpose other than that for which they were let within the meaning of clause (c) of the proviso to subsection (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The High Court held that the expression "the premises" in clause (c) means the entire premises let out to the tenant and clause (c) would apply only if the tenant uses the entire premises, whether it is a building or part of a building, let out to him, for a purpose other than the purpose for which they were let out to him.
Issues: 1. Whether the Tribunal erred in reducing the standard rent fixed by the Rent Controller? 2. Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that there was no user of the premises by the tenant for a purpose other than that for which they were let within the meaning of clause (c) of the proviso to subsection (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The standard rent fixed by the Rent Controller was correct as it was based on the reasonable cost of construction and the market price of the land comprised in the premises on the date of the commencement of the construction. 2. The expression "the premises" in clause (c) of the proviso to subsection (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 means the entire premises let out to the tenant and clause (c) would apply only if the tenant uses the entire premises, whether it is a building or part of a building, let out to him, for a purpose other than the purpose for which they were let out to him.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the second appeal, set aside the order of the Tribunal, and restored the order of the Rent Controller. The High Court also held that the Tribunal erred in holding that there was no user of the premises by the tenant for a purpose other than that for which they were let within the meaning of clause (c) of the proviso to subsection (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
( 1 ) THIS judgement will dispose of two Second Appeals, S. A. O. Nos. 92 and 306 of 1968. . Amrik Chand is the appellant in both the second Appeals, and Harbans Singh is the respondent in the two second Appeals. The facts which have given rise to these second Appeals are as follows :- The dispute between the parties relates to three rooms and a Varandah in house No. 14, South Patel Nagar, New Delhi. The said house was Government built property and was allotted to Amrik Chand by the Ministry of Rehabilitation in the year 1954. In 1955, an agreement deed purporting to be a partnership deed was executed between Amrik Chand and Harbans Singh, and the latter was put in possession of the said three rooms and Varandah. Subsequently, disputes arose between them, and Amrikchand filed a Civil Suit in 1957 for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts against Harbans Singh. Harbans Singh pleaded that he was a tenant of the premises in dispute and was using the back portion of the same for his residence and the front portion for manufacturing furniture. The trial court held that. the relationship of the parties was that of partners. But, on appeal, the Additional Senior Subordinate Judge, Delhi reversed the decision and te matter went up in Second Appeal No. 91-D of 1959 , of the High Couit. In that Second Appeal, an interim order was made by the High Court on 13th October, 1959, directing that Harbans,singh should deposit Rs. 45. 00 per mensem from 3rd October, 1955, and should continue to do so every month. The Second Appeal was dismissed by Capoor, J. on 27th April 1962, affirming the decision of the lower Appeliate court that partnership had not come into existence at all, and dismissing the suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts. The said judgment of the learned Single Judge was affirmed in an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent in April, 1964. On 12th August, 1964, Amrik Chand accepting the position of Harbans Singh as that of a tenant, filed a petition under section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, for eviction of Harbans Singh, alleging that the premises in dispute were non-residential and were let for manufacturing furniture; and that the tenant had changed the user of the premises to a tea shop-cum-residence without the permission of the landlord. Eviction was sought on two grounds, namely mis-user of the premises and non-payment of rent. The tenant, Harbans Singh, pleaded that the premises were commercial-cum residential, that he had never misused the same and that he had paid some amount to the landlord in the previous litigation, and accounts may be adjusted between the parties. He also pleaded that standard rent may be fixed. As regards non-payment of rent, the Rent Controller passed an order undersection 15 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, fixing the interim rent at Rs. 65. 00 per month and directing the tenant to deposit arrears of rent at the said rate with effect from 15. 6. 1961. Anappeal was preferred against the said order to the court of the Rent Control Tribunal which reduced the interim rent to Rs. 45. 00 per mensem. Against that order, a second Appeal, S. A. O. No. 147-D of 1965, was preferred TO the High Court by Amrik Chand. The Second Appeal was heard by A N. Grover, J. (as his Lordship then was), who by his judgment, dated 16th February, 1966, held that the agreed rate of rent was Rs. 65. 00 per mensem and the Rent Controller was justified in fixing the interim rent at Rs. 65. 00 per mensem, that the Rent Control Tribunal interefered with that order without giving cogent reasons, and that the Tribunal fell into a substantial error in interfering with the order of the Rent Controller in the matter of fixation of interim rent. In the result, the learned Judge allowed the Second Appeal, set aside the order of the Tribunal and restored the order of the Rent Controller. The petition for eviction subsequently came up for hearing before
AI
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
