FAQIR CHAND V. SHRI RAM RATTAN BHANOT, AIR 1973 SC 921
FACTS
The respondents are landlords of two houses in the Karol Bagh area of Delhi. The houses are built on lands given on long lease by the Delhi Improvement Trust to the rights, liabilities and assets of which the Delhi Development Authority has since succeeded.
Under the terms of the lease, subject to revision of rent, the lessees were to put up residential buildings on the leased lands and the lessees undertook:
(vi) not to use the said land and buildings that may be erected thereon during the said term for any other purpose than for the purpose of residential house without the consent in writing of the said lessor; provided that the lease shall become void if the land is used for any purpose other than that for which the lease is granted not being a purpose subsequently approved by the lessor…
Portions of buildings have been leased for commercial purposes, the lease was liable to be determined and called upon them to discontinue the use of the land for commercial purposes, failing which they were asked to show cause why their lease should not be determined and the land, together with the buildings thereon, re-entered upon without any compensation to them. Thereupon the landlords issued notice to the tenants asking them to stop the commercial use of the buildings and later instituted the proceedings out of which these appeals arise. In both these cases the buildings had been put to commercial use even before 1957 when the Delhi Development Authority Act of 1957 came into force.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Rent Controller: dismissed the petitions filed by the landlords and the appeals filed by them were dismissed.
High Court: referred the question that arise in these appeals to a Division Bench which took a view contrary to that taken in the two earlier decisions above referred to, and decided in favour of the landlords.
ISSUE
Are the landlords estopped or otherwise prohibited from getting possession of the property from the tenants because they themselves had let it out for commercial?
JUDGEMENT
The court observed that, the lease in its inception was not void nor is the landlord estopped from claiming possession because he himself was a party to the breach of the conditions under which the land was leased to him. Neither the clear words of the section, as in Waman Shriniwas Kini v. Rati Lal Bhagwandas nor a consideration of the policy of the Act lead us to the conclusion that the lease was void in its inception if it was for an unauthorised user.
High Court was not justified in leaving to the Controller no option but to pass an order for eviction The High Court is not correct in saying that since the Authority has no power to legalise the mis-user of land contrary to the plans by acceptance of compensation under the Development Act, the Controller cannot order the payment of compensation by the tenant to the Delhi Development Authority.
Moreover, Section 14 deals with prevention of the use of any land or building in the zone otherwise than in conformity with the zonal plan. Further-more it applies to lands leased by authorities like the Delhi Development Authority containing conditions against unauthorised user as well as to lands which do not belong to that category. Its provisions are not intended to enforce the conditions in those leases. The proviso to that section deals with the use to which a land or building may continue to be put even after the coming into force of the zonal plan subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by regulations, provided that building or land had been used for that purpose prior to the coming into force of the zonal plan. The section, therefore, does not contemplate complete prohibition of the use of a land or building for purpose other than that permitted in the zonal plan. therefore, Section 14 of the Delhi Development Act has no relevance in deciding the question at issue.
The appeal was allowed and the judgement of the High Court was set aside.
It was held that, the matter will have to go back to the Controller for deciding the question under sub-section (11) of Section 14 whether he should exercise the one or the other of the two alternatives mentioned therein. No order awarding compensation under the second alternative given in that sub-section can be made except in the presence of the Delhi Development Authority.