http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 7

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 2227 of 2000

PETITIONER:

M/s Precision Steel & Engg. Works & Anr.

RESPONDENT:

Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/12/2002

BENCH:

R.C. LAHOTI & BRIJESH KUMAR.

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

R.C. Lahoti, J.

Proceedings for eviction of the appellants-tenants, were

initiated by the respondent-landlord on the ground available under

clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control

Act, 1958 (hereinafter ’the Act’, for short). The High Court has, in

exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, passed an order for recovery of

possession of the tenancy premises. The tenants are in appeal by

special leave.

The tenancy premises are situated at B-44, Greater Kailash, Part

I, New Delhi. Out of the building standing over 1000 sq.yards plot

the appellants are in occupation of the front portion of the ground-

floor since 1971. Premises comprise of four bed-rooms, 3 bathrooms,

1 barsati, 1 garage and the servant quarters along with one bathroom

for servants. At this stage, it is no more in controversy that the

respondent is owner-cum-landlord of the premises and the appellants

are the tenants. The terms of tenancy are incorporated in a document

dated 13th September, 1971 called Licence Deed. The Rent Controller

and the High Court have both recorded findings of fact that the suit

premises are required bona fide by the respondent-landlord for

occupation as a residence for himself and the members of his family

and for satisfying such requirement the respondent does not possess

any other suitable accommodation. The controversy centers around

determination of the purpose for which the premises have been let,

and, depending on the answer, whether the applicability of Section

14(1)(e) of the Act is attracted. In the opinion of the Rent Controller

___ it is not; in the opinion of the High Court ___ it is.

Clauses 6,7,12 and 16 of the Licence Deed, which were referred

to by the learned counsel for the parties during the course of hearing,

are extracted and reproduced hereunder:-

"6. The Licensees shall use the said premises

for the residence of their Directors, partners

and officers. The Licensees will, however,

be free to use the said premises in part or in

full also for office purpose provided the

rules of the local authorities so permit and in

such an event the Licensees shall pay to the

owners any increase in local taxes, etc.

occasioned by such change of use of the said

premises from residential to office.

7. The Licensees shall not permit the said

premises or any part thereof being used by

any other person for any purpose whatsoever

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 7

without the previous consent in writing of

the owners and in default thereof the

Licence shall be liable for cancellation. The

Licensees shall not transfer possession of the

premises or part thereof or otherwise carry

on the business in the premises with any

other person or assign, transfer, change or

otherwise alienate their interest in the

premises.

12. The Licensees shall comply at all times with

all the rules and regulations of the local

authorities whatsoever in relation to the said

premises.

16. The Licensees agree and understand that the

said premises shall not be used for any

illegal or immoral purpose, for gambling or

for sale of alcoholic beverages and the

owners shall have full right to cancel the

Licence by giving one month’s notice in

case the said premises are used for any of

these purposes and to claim in full the

balance of the Licence-fees for the

unexpired part of the Licence period and in

addition to claim damages/for less of good

reputation of the premises and the owners

and also expenses sustained in the removal

of the Licensees’ establishment from the

said premises."

A few other relevant undisputed facts may also be noticed. The

master plan and the zonal plan of the