DR K. MADAN V. KRISHNAWATI (SMT), AIR 1997 SC 579
FACTS:
The appellant is a lady doctor and in the year 1963, she took the ground floor of a House from one Gyan Chand Shingari. In August 1974 the aforesaid Gyan Chand Shingari died and his widow, the respondent herein, became the owner of the property and the appellant attorned to her. According to the appellant, the premises were taken on rent by her for residential-cum-commercial purposes. She was residing in the said premises and was also running a clinic. According to the respondent, however, the premises were given on rent only for residence.
In the year 1974, the appellant constructed her own residential house and, soon thereafter she shifted her residence to the new house but continued to retain the premises in dispute where she maintained her clinic. It appears that possession of some of the portion of the ground floor, which had been in the occupation of the appellant, was taken back by the respondent but the appellant continued to be the tenant of two rooms with a common use of latrine and front verandah on the ground floor of the aforesaid house.
The respondent filed an eviction petition against the appellant before the Rent Controller under Section 14(1)(k) and (h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Additional Rent Controller: Eviction orders were passed on the ground under Section 14(1)(h) namely that the appellant had acquired vacant possession of a residence. The Additional Rent Controller further held that the ground under Section 14(1)(k) of the Act had been made out inasmuch as the appellant was using the premises as a clinic which was contrary to the terms and conditions imposed by the Land and Development Office on the respondent landlady.
Rent Control Tribunal: it was held that there was misuse of suit premises.
The appellant then filed an appeal to the High Court of Delhi raising the contentions that order under Section 14(1)(k) of the Act should not have been passed and secondly, the Government had permitted the conversion of the property from leasehold to freehold.
High Court: t held that with regard to the plea pertaining to applicability of Section 14(1)(k) of the Act, the finding of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi and of the Tribunal was a question of fact and no question of law arose. With regard to the policy of the Government permitting conversion of the property, it was held that the property in dispute was admittedly a leasehold property and the owner/landlord was not bound to seek conversion under the alleged policy.
ISSUE
Does the payment of penalty or compensation permit the continued misuser of the leased land?
JUDGEMENT
The court observed that, keeping in view the fact that clause (k) of the proviso to sub-section (1) has been inserted in order that the unauthorised use of the leased premises should come to an end, and also bearing in mind that the continued unauthorised use would give the principal lessor the right of re-entry after cancellation of the deed, the aforesaid words occurring in sub-section (11) of Section 14 cannot be regarded as giving an option to the Controller to direct payment of compensation and to permit the tenant to continue to use the premises in an unauthorised manner. The principal lessor may, in a given case, be satisfied, in cases of breach of lease to get compensation only and may waive its right of re-entry or cancellation of lease. In such a case the Controller may, instead of ordering eviction under Section 14(1)(k) of the Act, direct payment of compensation as demanded by the authorities mentioned in clause (k). Where, however, as in the present case compensation is demanded in respect of condoning/removal of the earlier breach, but the authority insists that the misuser must cease then the Controller has no authority to pass an order under Section 14(11) or Section 14(1)(k) of the Act giving a licence or liberty of continued misuser.
This being so, the question of the Controller requiring payment of penalty or compensation and permitting continued misuser would not be in accordance with law.
For the aforesaid reasons, orders of the court below were upheld, two months' time was granted to appellant to comply with the order dated of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi.