CM(M) 1132/2021

Page 1 of 10

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Judgment Reserved on: 10^th December, 2021

Judgment Delivered on: 22^nd December, 2021

+

CM(M) 1132/2021 & CM Nos.44410/2021 & 44413/2021

DEV RAJ

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr.Ranjit

Singh

Chowdhary,

Advocate

Versus

SAROJ SINGHAL (DECEASED) THROUGH

HER LRS. & ORS.

..... Respondents

Through:

Ms.Aruna Mehta, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

JUDGMENT

1.

The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

impugns the order dated 4^th 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 7^th 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:

2021:DHC:4334

CM(M) 1132/2021

Page 2 of 10

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 20^th

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.

2021:DHC:4334

CM(M) 1132/2021

Page 3 of 10

3.6

The eviction petition was allowed vide order dated 7^th 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 ShriRam

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 14^th October,

1996; (v)it was not disputed that the tenant did not change the user