IMPORTANT POINT
If Court is satisfied that relief in suit was sought urgently and sufficient ground has been made out for waiving with requirement of serving an advance notice under Section 80(2) CPC, suit is not bad for want of prior notice under Section 80 CPC.

S. Muralidhar, J.—The Plaintiff is a lessee of property No.182 Jor Bagh, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’). In this suit the Plaintiff inter alia seeks the mandatory injunction to quash the letter dated 17th December 2003 issued by the Defendant No.2, Land & Development Officer (L&DO) under the Ministry of Urban Development and Poverty Alleviation, Government of India calling upon the Plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs. 48,57,924 being the misuse charges and also file an undertaking, as a condition for regularization of the breaches and withdrawal of the order of re-entry. It also seeks the quashing of the letter dated 20th February 2004, rejecting the request of the Plaintiff for reconsideration of the aforementioned terms of regularization of the breaches and rejecting the demand made in the letter dated l7th December 2003. The suit also seeks a decree to injunct the Defendants from dispossessing the Plaintiff from the suit property except in accordance with the due process of the law.

2. The suit property is a plot measuring 410.89 sq. yds. It was purchased as a leasehold property by the Plaintiff at an auction in 1963 for a consideration of Rs. 83,500. It was thereafter was built upon as a residential property. It is at present a double-storied building with a barsati. A deed of perpetual lease was executed on 18th October 1966 by the President of India in favour of the Plaintiff Satish Kumar Mehta whereby the suit property was given on perpetual lease to the Plaintiff for a period of ninety-nine years.

3. Clause III of the lease deed set out the obligations of the lessee. In terms of Clause III (7) the lessee would not, without the consent of the lessor permit the demised premises “to be used for any purpose other than that of a double storey residential building for a private dwelling house for one or two families in all…” Under Clause V of the said lease deed, upon any breach by the lessee of the covenants of the lease it would be lawful for the lessor to re-enter the suit property. The proviso to the said clause entitled the lessor at its discretion to accept the payment of ground rent which shall be in arrears together with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum. Under Clause VI of the lease deed, no re-entry was to be effected until the lessor served the lessee a notice in writing specifying the particular breach complained of and if the breach was capable of remedy, requiring the lessee to remedy such breach. The re-entry would be effected only if the lessee failed, within a reasonable time from the date of service of the notice to remedy the breach if it was capable of being remedied.

4. It is stated by the Plaintiff that the ground floor of the suit property was let out to M/s. Organon India Ltd. for the purpose of residence of their Executives in the year 1971 for a monthly rent of Rs.1300. The tenant Organon India Ltd., misused the portion of the ground floor for some time but stopped this misuser upon protest of the Plaintiff. A substantial part of the misuse charges was paid to the Defendants. On the date of the filing of the present suit, a sum of Rs.191 remained to be paid so far as the misuse of ground floor portion was concerned.

5. The first floor of the suit property was let out to M/s. Consilium Pvt. Ltd. in August 1971 for the residential purpose of its Director. The first floor was vacated on l6th February, 2002 at the conclusion of the eviction suit filed by the Plaintiff. It is maintained that the Plaintiff had never let out the suit premises for any purpose other than residential.

6. By a notice dated 30th September 1978, the L&DO, i.e., Defendant No.2 informed the Plaintiff that the occupant of the first floor was using the premises in contravention of Clause III (7) of the perpetual lease deed. The plaintiff was also called upon to remedy the breaches failing which action to re-enter the premises would be taken under Clause V of the lease deed. It is claimed by the