DR. K. MADAN versus KRISHNAWATI (SMT.) AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 516 · Decided: 06-11-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
DR. K. MADAN 
v. 
KRISHNA WAT! (SMT.) AND ANOTHER 
NOVEMBER 6, 1996 
[A.M. AHMADI, CJ, SUJATA V. MANOHAR 
AND B.N. K!RPAL, JJ.] 
Rent Control and Eviction' Delhi Rent Control Act 1958.· S.14(l)(k) 
and S.14(11)-Premises on lease by Government/Development Authority/ 
Municipal Corporation-User of residential premises by tenant for 
C commercial purpose, contrary to terms of lease-Held, where authorities 
require stoppage of mis-user, continued misuser cannot be permitted on 
payment of compensation under Section 14(11) and controller would be 
justified in passing eviction order-On facts, tenant directed to stop the 
misuse and to pay damages till stoppage of misuser. 
D 
The residential premises in question had been allotted to G by 
the Government and after the death of G, his wife, the Respondent 
became the owner of the said premises. G had given the premises on 
rent to the appellant, a doctor, wbo was using the premises for 
purposes of both residence and clinic but had subsequently shifted 
E her residence to another place where she had constructed her own 
house but continued to retain a portion of the ground floor premises 
for purposes of her clinic. The submission of the Respondent was that 
the premises in question was residential and as the appellant had 
shifted to her new accommodation, the continued user of the premises 
by the appellant only as a clinic was against the terms of the lease 
F given by the Government. The Addi. Rent Controller held that the 
. ground u/s. 14(1 )(k) was made out and issued notice u/s. 14(11) of the 
Act to the Land and Development Office. On the basis uf the evidence 
led by the parties and written statement filed by the Deputy Land 
and Development Officer, the Addi. Rent Controller came to the 
conclusion that the appellant had been misusing the premises by 
running her clinic and the misuser/breach of the conditions of the 
lease could not be condoned permanently by the Office of Land and 
Development Officer (LDO). The appellant was directed to stop the 
mis-user within two months from the date of the order to avoid 
eviction. Also damages for mis-user was levied by the LDO and the 
H appellant was directed to pay the same within two months from the 
516 
K. MADAN v. KRISHNA WA TI 
517 
date of the order including damages for mis-user of the period A 
subsequent to 1.4.1989 till its stoppage. The Rent Control Tribunal 
and the Hon'ble High Court affirmed the finding of the Addi. Rent 
Controller. 
Disposing of the appeal, this Court 
B 
HELD : 1.1. The finding of the Trib'unal after taking into 
consideration the evidence on record, and in particular, the written 
statement of the Land and Development Officer as well as the 
statement of the witnesses before the Additional Rent Controller, was 
that the appellant was using the premises in a manner contrary to 
the terms of the lease between the landlady and the Land and C 
Development Office. [523 BJ 
1.2. Where the premises are used in a manner contrary to any 
condition imposed on the landlord by the Government or Delhi 
Development Authority or Municipal Corporation of Delhi, then the D 
landlord would be entitled to recovery of possession under Section 
14(1 )(k) of the Act. [ 525 FG] 
1.3. The alternative to an order of recovery of possession under 
Section 14(1) (k) is to pass an order under Sub-Section (11) of Section 
14 of the Act whereby the tenant is directed to comply with the E 
conditions imposed on the landlord by the authorities referred to in 
clause (k) of the proviso to Section 14(1), namely to stop the misuser 
of the premises in question. [525-H] 
1.4. Sub-section (11) of Section 14 gives option to the Controller 
to pass an order whereby recovery of possession may not be directed F 
but directing in.stead the payment of an amount by way of 
compensation. Thus Sub-section (11) of Section 14 enables the 
Controller to give another opportunity to the tenant to avoid an order 
of eviction. Where the authority concerned requires stoppage of mis-
user then an order to that effect has to be passed, but where the G 
authority merely demands compensation for mis-user and does not 
require the stoppage of mis-user then only in such a case would the 
Controller be justified in passing an order for payment of 
compensation alone. [525-G, 526-D-E] 
1.5. 
Continued wrongful user cannot be permitted by levying H 
518 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A penalty but if the authorities do not req

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.