FAQIR CHAND versus SHRI RAM RATTAN BHANOT

Citation: [1973] 3 S.C.R. 454 · Decided: 30-01-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.A. VAIDYIALINGAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
FAQIR CHAND 
v. 
SHRI RAM RATI'AN BHANOT 
January 30, 1973 
(With connected appeal) 
'[A. ALAGIRISWAMI, I. D. DUA AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JI.] 
The Delhi Rent Control :A.ct, 1952, s, 14-Lease of land by Improvr. 
ment Trust to landlord 
prohibiting 
use 
of 
land 
/or 
comm<rclal 
purposes-Landlord neverthelers leasing out part of building on land for 
commercial purpose-Le..se is not void-Landlord is not estopped from 
suing tenant for evictl'on-No estoppel agai'nst statutt-<;:ontroller 
muJt 
exercise one or the other of the two alternatires g,iven to 
hint, 
under 
s.14(1)-Clause (c) and (k) of the proviso to s. 14(1), applicability of, 
The respo;ndents were Jandldrds of two houses in the Karol Bagh 
area of Delhi. The bOuses were built !1tl lands given on 
Jong 
lease 
by the Delhi Improvement Trust to the rights, liabilities and a15ets of 
which the Delhi Development Authority subsequently succeeded. 
Under 
the terms of the leases the buildings erected on the lands were to be 
used for residential purposes only. If they were used for 
any 
other 
purpose without the approval of the lessor the leases 
would 
become 
void. 
Portiotns of the buildings in question were however let out for 
commercial purposes-viz. a barber shop and a scooter 
repair 
shop. 
The Delhi Development Authority gave notice to the 
landlords 
that 
since the buildings had been permitted to be used for commercial pur-
poses the leases were liable to be determined. 
They were called upon 
to discontinue the use of the land for 
commercial . purposes 
failing 
which they were asked to show cause why their leases should not be 
determined and the laind together with the buildings thereon be not re-
entered upon without compensation. Thereupon the 
landlords 
issued 
notice to the tenants asking them to stop the commercial use of the 
buildings. 
The landlords later on instituted proceedings 
against 
the 
tenants under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 but 
the 
Controller 
dismissed the petitions. Their appeals were 
dismissed. The 
Division 
Bench of the High Court decided in favour of the landlords. 
In appeal 
to this Court by special leave the question for c'onsideration was whether 
the landlords were estopped or 
otherwise 
prohibited 
from 
getting 
possession of the property from the tenants because 
they 
themselves 
had let it out for commercial purposes. 
The Court had to consid~r the 
question in the light of the provisions of s. 14 of the Act. 
HELD : (i) If it is a case \Vhere the. tenant has contrary to 
the 
terms of his tenoocy used the buildings for a commercial purpose the 
landlord could take actio,n under clause (c) of the proviso to s. 14(1). 
He need not depend upon clause (k) at all. 
The only 
situation 
in 
which clause (k) can take effect is when the lease is fdr a commercial 
purpose agreed upon both by the landlord and the tenant but that is 
<:ontrary to the terms of the lease of the land in favour of the landlord. 
[459E-G] 
(ii) The policy of the legislatures seems to be to put an end to 
unauthorised use of the leased lands rather than merely to enable the 
authorities .to get back possession of the leased lands. This concluai<*I 
is further fortified by a reference to sub-section 11 of section 14. The 
lease is not forfeited merely because the building put upon the leased 
land is put to unauthori90d use. 
The tenant is given an opportunity 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
PAQIR CHAND v. R. R. BRANOT (Alagiriswami, /.) 
455 
to oom~ly with the condition imposed on the landlord by any of the· 
authorities referred to in clause (k) of the proviso to sub-s,ection (I). 
As !()Ill& as the condition imposed i1 complied with there is no forfeiture. 
It even enables the controller to di'rect compensation to be paid to 
the authority for a breach of the conditions, which must be done in the 
presence of the authority. [459H; 460A-D] 
(iii) The anxiety of the U.jislatul'e is to prevent unauthorised user 
rather than protection of the tenaint or strenathening the hands of the 
Development Authority in effectina forfeiture. The Development autho-
rity can always resort to the terms of the least, [460F-0] 
There is no estoppel here because both the landlord and the tenant 
knew that the tenancy was not Q\llO permitted unde'r the terms of the 
lease cf the land. 
In any case there can be no estoppel against 
the 
statute. It would not benefit the tenant even if it is held 
that 
the 
landlord can:not, un

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