Point of Law : Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has to be very narrowly construed in the context of provisions of the DRC Act, especially when there are two concurrent findings written by the authorities below.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 4th October, 2021 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal (RCT), Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in RCT No. 30191/2016, whereby the appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the ‘tenant’) against the order dated 7th October, 2013 passed by the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) in Case No. E-159/13/1996, has been dismissed.

2. The counsel for the caveator/respondent no.6(ii) appears on caveat and therefore, submissions of both the counsels have been heard.

3. Brief facts as recorded in the orders of the ARC and RCT are set out hereinafter:

3.1 The premises bearing no. B-1074, Shastri Nagar, Sarai Rohilla, Delhi - 110052 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘subject property’) was let out by Sh. Bela Ram Singhal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘landlord’), the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, to the tenant in the year 1976. Initially one shop was let out for Rs. 200/- per month and the second shop was let out after one or two months for Rs. 140/- per month.

3.2 While no written agreement was executed between the parties at the time of the inception of tenancy, it was stated in the eviction petition that subject property was let out for commercial purposes, for running of a shop for selling biscuits and confectionary items.

3.3 However, in or around the year 1990/1991, the tenant converted the user of the shop for manufacturing bakery items and installed a bhatti along with one chimney without the written consent of the landlord. The installed ovens were emitting excessive smoke and heat, and creating polluting and nuisance, leading to the subject property becoming inhabitable and badly damaged.

3.4 The landlord sent the tenant a notice under Section 14(5) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘DRC Act’) on 20th August, 1996 to stop the said misuse, however the misuse did not stop immediately or within one month of the said notice being served.

3.5 In light of the aforesaid, the landlord filed the eviction petition under Section 14 (1)(c) of the DRC Act in 1996 in respect of the subject property on the grounds that the subject property was being used for a purpose other than for which the said property was let, and such misuse was creating a public nuisance, damage to the subject property and was detrimental to the interest of the landlord.

3.6 The eviction petition was allowed vide order dated 7th October, 2013 passed by the ARC reasoning/observing that:

(i) the tenant had used the subject property for manufacturing purposes, while it had been let out for commercial use;

(ii) there was a distinction between commercial purpose and manufacturing (industrial) purpose and reliance in this regard was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ram Gopal Vs. Jai Narian & Ors. 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 648 and the judgment of this Court in Shri Ram Saroop & Anr. Vs. Messrs Janki Dass Jai Kumar & Anr. 1975 SCC OnLine Del 180;

(iii) the tenant changed the user of the subject property without taking the consent of the landlord in writing;

(iv) notice was duly sent by the landlord in terms of Section 14(5) of the DRC Act and the same was replied to by the tenant on 14th October, 1996;

(v) it was not disputed that the tenant did not change the user of the subject property within one month from the date of service of notice as RW4 (tenant’s witness) had testified that the manufacturing activity stopped only in the year 1999;

(vi) it was the admitted case of the tenant that the manufacturing process was stopped only in compliance with the order dated 25th January, 1999 of the ADJ; and

(vii) it has been admitted in the cross examination of RW1 (tenant’s witness) that one bhatti and one chimney was installed by the tenant and it was functional.

3.7 The aforesaid judgment was challenged by the tenant by way of an appeal under Section 38 of the DRC Act, which was dismissed vide the impugned judgment dat