The main legal point established in the judgment is that the invocation of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 was not incompetent, and the eviction proceedings were not barred by any provision in the perpetual lease deed.

JUDGMENT

Prateek Jalan, J. - This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, filed by the Union of India [hereinafter referred to as "UOI"] arises out of eviction proceedings instituted by the respondent herein against the UOI. The UOI has challenged the order of the Rent Control Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"] dated 01.09.2007 in RCA No. 157/2006. By the impugned order, the Tribunal dismissed the UOI''s appeal against the orders of the learned Additional Rent Controller [hereinafter referred to as "ARC"] dated 14.02.2005 and 08.07.2004, allowing Eviction Suit No. 68/98/91, filed by the respondent.

Facts

2. Vide a perpetual lease deed dated 16.04.1945, the Governor General in Council (lessor) leased land measuring approximately 7.58 acres, situated on North and South Sujan Singh Park, New Delhi, to Hon''ble Sardar Bahadur Sir Sobha Singh and Sons Private Limited (lessee), with an obligation upon the lessee to construct blocks of residential flats, on the terms and conditions stated in the perpetual lease deed. It is undisputed that the UOI and the respondents herein are the successors-in-interest to these parties.

3. By virtue of Clause 2(9) of the perpetual lease deed, the parties had agreed that a certain number of flats, as constructed under the terms of the perpetual lease deed, would be leased to the UOI for accommodation of its officials at a fair rent. For the purpose of the present proceedings, two clauses of the perpetual lease deed are relevant: -

"(8) So long as the war continues and for one year from the date the Central Government declares it as having ended, the Labour Department of the Government of India shall have the right to use the whole of the buildings or any part thereof paying a rental assessed by that Department on the basis of the capital cost.

(9) Even after the conclusion of the period mentioned at (8) above, the Central Government shall be entitled to require that a certain number of the flats, not exceeding 50% of the total, shall be leased to officials named by them, at a fair rent as assessed by or under the orders of the Central Government."

4. The eviction proceedings were instituted by the respondent on the basis that, despite the respondent sending a notice dated 14.01.1991 to the UOI, the UOI failed to pay rent for the flats in their possession. It was submitted that the UOI stopped paying rent after 31.03.1989, and even after the respondent''s notice for payment of arrears of rent, the UOI failed to make the payment.

5. At the time of filing the eviction suit, it was stated that, as per Clause 2(9) of the perpetual lease deed, 14 flats were in possession of the UOI, through its officials. The impugned order records that, at the appellate stage, it was submitted that out the 84 flats constructed by the respondent, the UOI was in possession of 13 flats, in addition to 41 servant quarters and 26 garages. (It is undisputed that one flat was released by the UOI.)

6. The learned ARC recorded the evidence and, vide an order dated 08.07.2004, found that the UOI had in fact failed to make payment of arrears of rent, despite a notice sent by the respondent in 1991. It was held that the UOI is liable to make such payment to the respondent, and an order of eviction dated 14.02.2005 was passed, in respect of 5 single bed room flats, 9 double bed room flats, 39 servant quarters and 25 garages situated on North and South Sujan Singh Park, Municipal No. III PR-1 to 556 and 560 to 573, New Delhi, as shown in the site plans exhibited as Ex. A-4 to A-77, in the proceedings.

7. The Tribunal, by an order dated 08.08.2005, initially dismissed the UOI''s appeal on the ground of delay in filing and this Court, vide an order dated 25.10.2005 in CM(M) 2597/2005, declined to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. However, by an order dated 16.10.2006 in Civil Appeal No. 4511/2006, the Supreme Court condoned the UOI''s delay in filing of the appeal, subject to payment of costs