Valmiki J. Mehta, J. (Oral):--

1. This petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioner/tenant against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below; of the Additional Rent Controller dated 09.1.2012 and the Rent Control Tribunal dated 01.8.2012. By the impugned judgments, the Courts below have directed eviction holding that the petitioner herein, respondent (tenant) in the court below has failed to comply with the original order of eviction passed under Section 14(1)(k) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, and, the petitioner herein cannot take up the issues on merits of permissibility of misuser in the present consequent proceedings under Section 14(11) of the Act, inasmuch as, such issues on merits could have been raised before the Additional Rent Controller in the main proceedings under Section 14(1)(k) and which proceedings were finally decided by passing the orders dated 06.2.1996 and 26.2.1996. Effectively what is held by the concurrent judgments is that any entitlement to misuse or whether misuse is permissible or should be stopped because it is not permissible, are issues which have to be addressed and argued on merits before the order under Section 14(1)(k) is passed and not in the consequent proceedings under Section 14(11) of the Act.

2. Section 14(1)(k) and Section 14(11) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 read as under:--

“Section 14(1)(k) that the tenant has, notwithstanding previous notice, used or dealt with the premises in a manner contrary to any condition imposed on the landlord by the Government or the Delhi Development Authority or the Municipal Corporation of Delhi while giving him a lease of the land on which the premises are situate;

Section 14(11) No order for recovery of possession of any premises shall be made on the ground specified in clause (k) of the proviso to sub-section (1), if the tenant, within such time as may be specified in this behalf by the Controller, complies with the condition imposed on the landlord by any of the authorities referred to in that clause or pays to that authority such amount by way of compensation as the Controller may direct.”

3. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid sections shows that a tenant cannot misuse the tenanted premises against the user permissible under the lease deed by which the landlord becomes the perpetual lessee of the premises from the Government/L&DO. The leased property has to be used by the lessee/landlord, or by the tenant who is inducted by the landlord, only in terms of the permissible user provided under the lease deed of the landlord with the superior lessor/L&DO. User as provided under the lease deed is also permissible to be changed, provided there are subsequent circulars of the L&DO permitting change of user as specified in the lease deed. If there is misuse of the premises by using the premises for a purpose which is not provided for in the lease deed of the landlord with the superior lessor, then such misuse whether by the landlord or by the tenant inducted by the landlord is not permissible, even if, the landlord has with his consent permitted the misuser of the tenanted premises. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Faqir Chand v. Ram Rattan Bhanot AIR 1973 SC 921 that there is no estoppel against the landlord from instituting a petition under Section 14(1)(k), and this is because otherwise there will be user of premises in Delhi outside the permissible user as provided in the lease deed of the superior lessor/L&DO. On misuse being required by the superior lessor to be stopped, the landlord is entitled to file a petition for eviction under Section 14(1)(k). In such a petition, two aspects come in issue; one aspect is with respect to existence and permissibility of misuse, and the second aspect is with respect to the misuser charges for the misuse. With respect to the misuse, the superior lessor/L&DO can permit misuser subject to payment of charges or it may refuse to condone the misuser at

Click Here to Read the rest of this document