SHRI MUNSHI RAM AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. AUGUST 10, 2000 [SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.] Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 : S.14( l)(k)-Misuser of premises by tenant-Eviction of-Land leased out on condition that land and building constructed on it should not be used for other than residential purpose-Tenant running a shop in the premises- Petition by landlord for eviction of tenant-Notice by Delhi Development Authority to landlord stating that premises being used for commercial purpose contrary to terms of lease, the lease deed has become void and lessor got rig hr to re-enter-Additional Rent Controller directing tenants to pay misuser charges, and to stop .further misuser failing which order of eviction would be deemed to h~ve been passed against them-Held, in view of misuser of premises and DDA insisting to act upon the notice, DDA cannot be directed to permit continued misuser contrary to tem1s of lease-Delhi Development Act, 1957-Ss. 7 and 8. Respondent no. 3 purchased the suit premises which form part of a building constructed on the land given on perpetual lease by the Delhi Improvement Trust, the predecessor of the Delhi Development Authority, respondent no.2, to the original lessor with the condition that the lessee should. not use the said land and building that might be erected thereon during the term of the lease for any other purpose than for the purpose of residential house without the consent of the lessor.
c In 1974, respomlent no. 3 filed a petition under s.14(1) (k) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 seeking eviction of the appellants, who were tenants in suit premises and were running a shop therein. On 4.1.1982, the DDA issued a notice to respondent no. 3 stating that the said premises were being used for commercial-cum-residential purposes, which was contrary to the terms of the lease and, therefore, the lease became void and the lessor got the right to re-enter after cancellation of lease. The notice further stated that the lease had been cancelled by the DDA on 23.12.1981 for breach of clause l(VI) and it would take possession of the land and the building. Ultimately the Additional Rent Controller passed an order on c
6.9.1988 directing the appellants to pay within two months the past mis- user charges to respondent no. 3 for being deposited with the DDA, to pay further compensation/charges to DDA as may be demanded by it and to stop misuser of the premises. The order further stated that in the event of non-compliance with the directions, the order of eviction under s.14(1)(k) of the Act would be deemed to have been passed against the appellants. The order was upheld by the Rent Control Tribunal as also by the High Court. Aggrieved, the tenants filed the present appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD : There has been misuser of the premises in breach of Clause l(VI) of the terms of the lease. The ground of eviction is Clause (k) of s.14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The unauthorised user would give the paramount lessor the right to re-enter after cancellation of the lease deed. The Delhi Development Authority has been insisting to act upon the notice dated 4.1.1982 issued to respondent no. 3. The stand of the DDA is that after due payment for past misuser, the lessee is bound to discontinue the misuse in future. It cannot be said that despite contraven- tion of the lease, the paramount lessor is debarred from exercising its rights under the terms of the lease for absence of providing a user under s.7 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 in the master plan or under s.8 in the zonal development plan. The DDA cannot be directed to permit contin- ued misuser contrary to the terms of the lease on the ground that zonal development plan of the area has not been framed. However, the appel- lants are granted two months time to comply with the order of the Addi- tional Rent Controller. [381-B-C; 383-C; F; G]
Dr. K. Madan v. Krishnawati (Smt.) and Anr., [1996] 6 SCC 707, relied on. Narain Das v. Manohar Lal & Anr., [1988] Sup. SCC 432, held inappli- cable CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3095 of 1990. From the Judgment and Order dated 9.2.90 of the Delhi High Court in C.W.P. No. 3260 of 1989.
K.N. Rawal, Additional Solicitor General, D.D. Thakur, A.B. Rohatgi, Vijay Prakash, Siddharth Choudhary, Rajeev Sharma, T.N. Bhat, B.K. Punj, MUNSHI RAM'" U.O.L [YK. SABHARWAL, J.]
B.K. Sharma, S.B. Kumar, J.M. Khanna, V.B. Saharya, S.W.A. Qadri, S.N. Terdol and Ms. Sushma Suri for the appearing parties. The judgment of the Court was delivered by Y.K. SABHARWAL, J. The appellants are tenants. The tenanted premises are situate in Karol Bagh Area, Delhi. The landlord is respondent no.3 whereas Union of India and the Delhi Development Authority (for short 'DDA') are respondents 1 and 2 respectively.
The tenanted premises are part of building constructed on the land leased to the original lessee by Delhi Improvement Trust. The DDA succeeded the said Trust. The perpetual lease, inter alia, provides that the lessee will not use the land and building that may be erected thereon during the terms of the lease for any other purpose than for the purpose of residential house without the consent in writing of the lessor. Admittedly the premises are being used by the appellants for commercial purposes.
By notice dated 4th January, 1982 issued by DDA, respondent no.3 was informed that the premises were being used for the purpose of commercial- cum-residential which is contrary to the terms of the lease and the lease has become void and the lessor has right to re-enter after cancellation of lease. It was further stated in the said notice that the lease has been cancelled by DDA on 23rd December, 198 l for breach of Clause I(VI) and the possession of the plot together with the building and the fixtures standing thereon will be taken over by DDA. In a suit filed by respondent no.3 against DDA for grant of permanent injunction, interim injunction was granted by civil court inter alia noticing in the order that the owner had instituted eviction proceedings as far back as in 1974 against the tenants who were running their shops even at the time of the purchase of premises in question by the owner from its erstwhile owner.
In 1974, respondent no.3 instituted eviction petitions against the appel- lants seeking their eviction under clause (k) of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act'). The said clause stipulates an order of eviction being passed against the tenant who has, notwithstanding previous notice, used or dealt with the premises in a manner contrary to any condition imposed on the landlord by the Government or the Delhi Development Authority or the Municipal Corporation of Delhi while giving him a lease of the land on which the premises are situate. The tenant cannot resist his eviction when sought under Section 14(1 )(k) of the Act merely c
(2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. on the ground that the landlord had himself let out the premises for commercial use (Faqir Chand v. Shri Ram Rattan Bhanot, [ 1973] 1 SCC 572). Under sub- section (11) of Section 14 of the Act, before an order for recovery of possession of any premises on the grounds specified in clause (k) of the proviso to sub- section (1) of the said section is made, the Controller is required to give to the tenant time to comply with the conditions imposed on the landlord by any of the authorities referred to in clause (k) or pays to that authority such amount by way of compensation as the Controller may direct.
The Additional Rent Controller by order dated 6th September, 1988 after coming to the conclusion that the ODA is not interested in permitting the misuse permanently or even temporarily and has threatened to re-enter the premises, directed the appellants to pay within two months the past mis-user charges to respondent no.3 for being deposited with the ODA. The appellants were also directed to pay further compensation/charges as may be demanded by DOA in this regard. The appellants were directed to stop mis-user of the premises within two months from the date of the order and in the event of non- compliance of any of these conditions, it was directed that the order of eviction under Section 14(l)(k) of the Act shall be deemed to have been passed against the appellants for their eviction from the premises in question. This conditional order of eviction has been upheld by the Rent Control Tribunal in appeal as also by the High Court.
Challenging the aforesaid orders, Mr.D.D.Thakur submits that since the appellants are prepared to pay such amount of penalty as compensation as may be determined by the Controller to be payable to DOA till the matter of regularisation of user is finally decided by the said authority, the case be remanded to the Rent Controller for such a determination. Learned counsel places strong reliance on the decision in the case of Narain Das v. Manohar Lal & Am:, [ 1988] Supp. SCC 432. In the said case, an order of eviction passed under Section 14( I )(k) was set aside by this Court and the case was remitted to the Controller to determine the quantum of penalty payable to the ODA for the purpose of wrong user of property by changing it from residential to commercial purpose and directing that the tenant will bear the burden of penalty as may be determined. The said decision has no applicability to the facts of the present case since in that case the DOA did not press the notice for cancellation of the lease and for this reason the case was remitted to the Controller for determining the penalty. In view of resolution of the DOA, a statement was made on its behalf in that case that the lease would not be cancelled pursuant to the notice which had been sent to the owner. Under these MUNSHI RAM v. U.0.1. [Y.K. SABHARWAL, J.]
circumstances, in the relied upon decision there was no threat of cancellation of the lease which is a pre-condition for an order of eviction under clau>c (k) of proviso to sub-section (I) of Section 14 of the Act. The Court made it clear that in the event of fresh notice being issued by DOA to the landlord for cancellation of the lease in his favour, the landlord would be free to take action against the tenant in accordance with law and the decision of this Court shall not operate as a bar to such proceedings. Unlike the facts of the relied upon case, in the present case the DOA has been insisting to act upon the notice dated 4th January, 1982 sent to respondent no.3. That has been the clear stand of ODA in proceedin6S before the Additional Rent Controller. The Secretary of the ODA to the same effect has filed an affidavit in this Court as well. The stand of the ODA is that after due payment for past misuser, the lessee is bound to discontinue the misuse in future. A statement showing action taken by DOA against misuser of premises in the vicinity of the premises in question has also been filed. Mr. Kirti Rawal, learned Addi.Solicitor General appearing for DOA submits that the DOA is not contemplating to regularise the misuser and in case the misuser is not stopped, the ODA will act upon the notice and re-enter the premises. In this state of affairs, the decision in Narain Das case (supra) can be of no assistance to the appellants.
Next, Mr.Thakur relies upon (i) the order dated 3rd January, 1983 passed by Lt.Governor of Delhi inter alia stating that the issue of notices and further action under misuser clause in the various areas of Delhi may be suspended till the matter has been reviewed at a high level or in the next meeting of ODA; (ii) the affidavit of the Secretary of Delhi Development Authority of February, 1983 filed in the High Court of Delhi in another case in a second appeal inter alia stating that the further show cause notice has been suspended for the time being and even the prosecution for the misuse has been suspended for the time being as per the order of the Lt.Governor as there is a likelihood of permission being granted for commercialisation of the area in accordance of the provisions of the master plan/zonal plan after charging certain dues, and (iii) to a some- what similar statement as in (ii) given in another case by the Commissioner (Land), ODA. Reliance on these documents is wholly misplaced for more than one reason. Firstly, these documents pertain to 1980s whereas in the present case the Commissioner (Land Disposal), DOA has filed an affidavit even in September, 1998 inter alia stating that though a scheme dated 12/17 Septem- ber, 1996 has been forwarded by DOA to the Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment for approval of the Government of India for promotion of Karol Bagh area as special area and for promotion of commercial use on ground floor c
SUPRE.\1E COURT REPORTS on the basis of location but the examination of the plan of the premises in question shows that the disputed area falls outside the area of the scheme which is under consideration with DOA and the Union of India. In nutshell, the affidavit is that in respect of the area in question there is no proposal under consideration lo allow commercial user. Secondly, we do not have the facts of cases in which the abovenoted affidavit was filed by the Secretary of ODA or statement was given by Commissioner (Land Disposal), ODA. Thirdly, we are considering not a violation of master or zonal plan but breach of a term of lease, which paramount lessor is unwilling to condone. In the present case, it is not necessary to decide as to the effect of the proposal sent by DOA to Central Government to allow commercial user since the ground of eviction is clause (k) as aforesaid where the question is about breach of a term of lease and the lessor has declined to regularise the misuser for future.
Learned Additional Solicitor General submits that the DOA is not only serious in pursuing the action taken by it on account of misuser but it is duty bound to do so. Mr. Thakur also referred to the provisions of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (for short 'the DD Act') to contend that plans thereunder have not specified any particular use of the area where the building is situate. Chapter III of the DD Act deals with Master Plan and Zonal Development Plans. Section 7 provides for the DDA to carry out a civic survey and prepare a master plan for Delhi. Section 8 provides for preparation of a Zonal Development Plan for each of the zones into which Delhi may be divided and also refers as to what aspects may be contained in the said Plan. The land use is one such aspect. Mr. Thakur contends that neither the master plan for the year 1990-2001 shows that the permissible user of the area in question is only residential nor zonal development plan under Section 8 of the DD Act has been framed providing for only residential use.
Reference has also been made to Section 14 which inter a/ia provides that after the coming into operation of any of the plans in a zone, no person shall use or permit to be used any land or building in that zone otherwise than in conformity with such plan. The proviso to the said section stipulates that it shall be lawful to continue to use upon such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by regulations, any land or building for the purpose and to the extent for and to which it is being used on the date on which such plan comes into force. Section 57(1)(!) stipulates making of regulations to provide for terms and conditions subject to which user of lands and buildings in contravention of plans may be continued. Learned counsel contends that the impugned eviction orders deserve to be set aside as even regulations under Section 57(1)(!) have not been framed by DDA providing for terms and MUNSHI RAM v. U.0.1. [Y.K. SABHARWAL, J.]
conditions on which continued user in contravention of plans may be permit- ted. None of the aforesaid provisions have any applicability to the present case. We are not concerned with the contravention as postulated by Section 14 of th~ DD Act. The question whether master plan and/or zonal plans provide or not for any use is not relevant for this matter. As already noted, we are concerned with the breach of the terms of the lease. It is not in dispute that the commercial use is contrary to the use permissible under the lease. The para- mount lessor has taken action to terminate the lease for contravention of the terms thereof. It cannot be held that despite contravention of the lease, the paramount lessor is debarred for exercising its rights under the terms of the lease for absence of providing a user under Section 7 in the master plan or under Secti11n 8 in the Zonal Development Plan.
In Dr. K. Madan v. Krishnawati (Smt.) and Anr., [1996] 6 SCC 707, this Court has held that where the premises are used in a manner contrary to any condition imposed on the landlord by the Government or the Delhi Develop- ment Authority or Municipal Corporation of Delhi, then the landlord will be entitled to recovery of possession under Section 14(l)(k) of the Act and that sub-section (11) of Section 14 of the Act enables the Controller to give another opportunity to the tenant to avoid an order of eviction. The first opportunity to the tenant is given when the notice is served on him by the landlord and the second opportunity is given when an conditional order under Section 14(11) of the Act is passed directing the tenant to pay the amount by way of compen- sation for regularisation of user up to the date of stopping the misuser and further directing stoppage of unauthorised user. The continued unauthorised user would give the paramount lessor the right to re- enter after the cancellation of the lease deed. As already noticed, the DOA is insisting on stoppage of misuser. The misuser is contrary to the terms of lease. The DOA cannot be directed to permit continued misuser contrary to the t'erms of the lease on the ground that zonal development plan of the area has not been framed. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in the appeal and It IS accordingly dismissed. We, however, grant to the appellants two months time to comply with the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 6th Septem- ber, 1988. There will be no order as to the costs.
R.P. Appeal dismissed. c