SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(Del) 982

Delhi High Court
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
Sureshwar Dayal Seth - Appellant
Versus
L and DO - Respondent
W.P. © No. 2434 of 1983
Decided On : 11/14/2005

Advocates:
H. L. Tiku, Sr. Advocate, Yashmeet Kaur, for Petitioner; Siddharth Mridul, Ms. Pragya Gupta, for Respondents.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the use of the premises as a bank did not violate the lease terms, as it constituted a commercial activity falling within the definition of a 'shop'. The court also emphasized the significance of the office order dated 24-11-1975, which permitted a change of use from one trade to another in business premises.

Headnote:

lease - breach of lease terms - [shops, residential house] - [Clause XIV, Clause XV, Clause XX] - The court discussed the breach of lease terms related to the use of the property for commercial purposes and the interpretation of the clauses XIV, XV, and XX of the lease agreement. The court emphasized that the use of the premises as a bank did not violate the lease terms as it constituted a commercial activity falling within the definition of a 'shop'. The court also highlighted the significance of the office order dated 24-11-1975, which permitted a change of use from one trade to another in business premises.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought to quash orders and restrain respondents from re-entering a property in New Delhi due to alleged breaches of lease terms. The petitioner argued that using the ground floor as a bank did not violate the lease terms, as permission had been granted for the bank to conduct business activities.

Finding of the Court:

The court quashed the impugned orders and issued a writ of injunction against the respondent, restraining them from re-entering the leased premises or resuming possession of the property.

Issues: The main issue revolved around the alleged breach of lease terms due to the use of the property for commercial purposes, specifically as a bank, and the interpretation of the lease clauses XIV, XV, and XX. The petitioner also raised concerns regarding the validity of the impugned orders and sought to prevent forcible eviction and resumption of the property.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the use of the premises as a bank did not violate the lease terms, as it constituted a commercial activity falling within the definition of a 'shop'. The court also emphasized the significance of the office order dated 24-11-1975, which permitted a change of use from one trade to another in business premises.

Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned orders and issued a writ of injunction against the respondent, restraining them from re-entering the leased premises or resuming possession of the property.

Judgement

ORDER :- By way of the present petition, petitioner prays that the order dated 14-9-1982 (Annexure-P7), order dated 3-1-1983 (Annexure-P-9) and order dated 24-9-1983 (Annexure-P11) be quashed and as a consequence respondents be restrained from re-entering property bearing No. 13, Block 48, Diplomatic Enclave, New Delhi.

2. Backdrop of the facts leading to the filing of the petition are that vide agreement for lease (Annexure-P1) dated 22-7-1963, acting on behalf of the President of India, L and Do executed a lease in favour of the Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Limited, under which a plot of land admeasuring 306.67 square yards numbered as plot No. 13, Block 48, Shopping Centre, Diplomatic Enclave was leased in favour of the lessee. Relevant part of the lease, relating to the use of the building to be constructed on the plot reads as under :-

"XIV. During the period of this Agreement the said land shall be used only for the purpose expressly stated in Clause II hereof and subject to the terms of the covenant in that respect to be contained in the Lease no part of the building to be erected on the said land shall at any time hereafter without the previous consent in writing of the said officer be used or allowed to be used for any purpose whatsoever other than as 4 shops facing two on the front and two on the back verandah at the ground floor and a residential house for one or two families in all on the first floor."

3. The Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Limited constructed the building and intended to sell the same to the petitioner. It sought the necessary sale permission from the lessor which was granted vide letter dated 9-5-1967 (Annexure-P-2). Based on the sanction granted, Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Limited, vide sale deed date 11-5-1967 registered as document No. 3212, additional book No. 1, Volume 1764, pages 52-55, registered on 18-5-1967 sold the building and the leasehold rights to the petitioner. Vide letter dated 22-5-1967 petitioner intimated the fact of having purchased the property and as a consequence sought mutation in his favour in the records of the L and DO.

4. Vide letter dated 6-9-1967 (Annexure-P-4), L and DO intimated to the petitioner that it had carried out, in the records of the L and DO, the necessary mutation. It was pointed out that the petitioner would be bound by the covenants of the original lease executed on 22-7-1963 by L and DO in favour of the Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Limited.

5. On 18-12-1971 (Annexure-P-5) petitioner sought permission of L and DO as under :-

"In the meantime I seek your permission to let the property on rent to the National and Grindlays Bank Limited which would use the basement for storage, ground floor for business and first floor for residential purposes."

6. Vide letter dated 29-12-1971 (Annexure-P-6) L and DO conveyed the necessary sanction to the petitioner. It reads as under :-

"To,

Shri Sureshwar Dayal Seth,

No. 8, Dharam Marg,

Diplomatic Enclave,

New Delhi.

Dear Sir,

With reference to your letter dated 18-12-1971 on the above subject, I am to say that this office has no objection under the lease if the property is let out to the National and Grindlays Bank Ltd. For using basement for storage purposes, ground floor for shops and first floor for residential purposes.

Yours faithfully.

Sd/- xxx

A. S. Madan

Dy. Land and Development Officer"

7. The first impugned order dated 14-9-1982 (Annexure-P7) was issued by L and DO to the petitioner. Following was intimated :-

"To

Shri S. D. Seth

8-Dharam Marg,

Chanakya Puri, New Delhi.

Sub : Notification of the breaches on account of the unauthorised construction misuse in Property No. Shop No. 13, Block No. 48 known as Diplomatic Enclave, New Delhi.

Dear Sir,

On inspection of the above premises on 16-7-1982 the following breaches were noticed at site by the Inspecting Officer :-

1. Ground floor is being used as Bank

These breaches are in contravention of Clause XIV of the Agreement for Lease.

You are, theref
















































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top