MANMOHAN, J (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging the order dated 29th January, 2007 passed by Additional Rent Control Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) whereby petitioners’ appeal against order dated 26th February, 2005 allowing respondent-landlord’s eviction petition under Section 14(1)(c)&(j) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘DRC Act’), was dismissed.

2. Briefly stated the facts relating to the present petition are that on 6th January, 1966 Mr. Jaktar Singh, the predecessor-in-interest of petitioners took on rent, premises bearing Shop No. 12, Old Market, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘tenanted premises’). The respondent-landlord on 22nd December, 1999 issued an eviction notice to petitioners-tenants on the ground that they were misusing the tenanted premises. In the said notice it was alleged that tenanted premises were to be used for a specific purpose of ‘Halwai’ but premises were actually being used for running a business of crushing of sugarcane and fruits of different kinds, which not only constituted a misuse but was also detrimental to the interest of respondent-landlord. In the written statement petitioners-tenants took a number of defences.

3. However, both Additional Rent Controller (in short ‘ARC’) as well as Tribunal have allowed respondent-landlord’s petition under Section 14(1)(c) and (j) of DRC Act. The relevant observations of ARC as well as the Tribunal are re-produced hereinbelow for ready reference :- ARC’s order :-“26……However, remaining part i.e. Chapper which is made of cement sheets and residing on iron angles and iron rods which are embedded into the walls of the property cannot be said to be temporary in nature and have definitely cause substantial damage to the property in question.

Accordingly, the aforesaid judgment relied upon by the counsel for the respondent is distinguishable on these peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and there is no doubt that the said construction of permanent chapper has caused impairment in the value and utility of the premises seen from the point of view of the landlord as petitioner was only let out premises consisting of shop measuring 8’,9x16’ and the verandah in front measuring 9’3” x 7’8” as stated in judgment Ex. AW3/2 and the respondents cannot be allowed to thrust upon the landlord a totally new structure from what he was let out initially and the shop in question has been let out for non residential purposes and accordingly, it would definitely reduced the commercial value and utility of the shop from the point of view of landlord as aforesaid illegal construction not only decreases the aesthetic value of the shop but also decreases the monetary value from the point of view of the landlord. Accordingly, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has been able to prove that respondents have caused substantial damage to the property in question. Accordingly, petitioner has been able to make out a case U/S 14(1)(j) of DRC Act. xxxx xxxxx xxxxx

28. In view of the aforesaid settled law and the admission of the respondent that they are running the premises in question for selling the fruits juice and cold drinks and also deposition of AW4 who is the witness from Delhi Vidyut Board who has stated that two electricity connections, one is for industrial power with central load of 7.5 H.P. and other for industrial light of 1 K.W respectively and its user was converted on the application of the consumer dated 27.05.93. He has proved the copy of the agreement executed by Jagtar Singh, his affidavit etc. which are EX AW4/1 to EX AW4/3. In EX AW4/3 there is undertaking to DVB given by the predecessor in interest of respondents that he shall use the supply of connection purely for industrial purpose & shall not misuse the same for any other purpose. RW6 has also admitted in his cross-examination that aforesaid two connections wer

Click Here to Read the rest of this document