SHRI MUNSHI RAM V. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 2000 SC 2623
FACTS
The Appellants are tenants. The landlord is respondent no. 3 whereas Union of India and the Delhi Development Authority 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 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 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, 1981 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.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Additional Rent Controller: The Additional Rent Controller by order dated 6th September, 1988 after coming to the conclusion that the DDA 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 DDA.
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(1)(k) of the Act shall be deemed to have been passed against the appellants for their eviction from the premises in question.
Rent Control Tribunal: This conditional order of eviction has been upheld by the Rent Control Tribunal in appeal as also by the High Court.
ISSUE
Does the payment of penalty or compensation permit the continued misuser of the leased land?
JUDGEMENT
The court was 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 paramount lessor has taken action to terminate the lease for contravention of the terms thereof.
The court referred to the case of Dr. K. Madan v. Krishnawati (Smt.) and held that the DDA is insisting on stoppage of misuser. The misuser is contrary to the terms of lease. The DDA therefore, cannot be directed to permit continued misuser contrary to the terms of the lease on the ground that zonal development plan of the area has not been framed.
For the aforesaid reasons, it was found that there was no merit in the appeal and it was accordingly dismissed. It was granted to the appellants two months time to comply with the order of the Additional Rent Controller.