M/S. BHARAT SALES LTD. AND ANR. versus SMT. LAKSHMI DEVI AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] 3 S.C.R. 1135 · Decided: 08-07-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. MOHAPATRA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

MIS. BHARAT SALES LTD. AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
SMT. LAKSHMI DEVI AND ORS. 
JULY 8, 2002 
[D.P. MOHAPATRA, BRIJESH KUMAR AND D.M. 
B 
DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] . 
Rent and Eviction: 
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958-Clauses (b), (c) and (k) of provisio to C 
Section 14(/) and Section 14(11): 
Eviction Petition-On ground of sub-letting and misuse-Disn1issed by 
Rent Controller-On appeal, Rent Tribunal held, ground of eviction under 
clause (k} of proviso to Section 14(1) available and directed the Rent Controller D 
to deter1nine tnisuser charges-Misuser charges determined accordingly and 
apportioned between parties-Misuser charges on tenants on bre_ach of 
stipulation in the lease deed between paramount lessor and /essee/landlord-
Justification-Held. when tenants are willing to deliver vacant possession to 
the lessee/landlord or paran1ount lessor, ii is not appropriate to direct tenants 
to pay n1isuser charges-However, co1npensation, da111age or mesne p~ofit E 
could be recovered from the tenants. 
Breach of conditions of lease-Notice by lessor~Deter111ination of 
lease-Eviction proceedings-Re-ent1y by para1nount lessor-· Validity of:_ 
Held, since lessor has not taken over possession of suit pre1nises due to 
pendency of proceedings between lessee and tenants, he could re-enter the F 
premises-After the Eviction order tenants should deliver possession of the 
property directly to para111ount lessor. 
Predecessor-in-interest of respondents had taken the suit property 
on lease for non-commercial use from Governor General in Council in G 
1938, who was succeeded by the Union of India acting through the Land 
and Development Officer. The lessee let out the suit property to the 
appellants/tenants for office purpose against the stipulation of the lease 
and they further misused it as unauthorised shop. The land & Development 
Officer issued a notice to lessee for certain breaches in the use of the 
1135 
H 
'I ,) 
1136 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002] 3 S.C.R. 
A leasehold premises. The lessee had failed to comply with the notice. 
i 
Therefore, lessor had determined the lease. In the meantime, an Eviction 
Petition was filed by the lessee against the appellant-tenants under clauses 
(b), (c) and (k) of proviso tv Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 
alleging sub-letting and misuser of the suit premises, which was dismissed 
B 
by the Rent Controller. On appeal, Rent Control Tribunal affirmed the 
order of the Rent Controller in so far as dismissal of the petition under 
clauses (b) and (c) of proviso to Section 14(1) but observed that grounds 
of eviction were available under clause (k) of proviso to Section 14(1) and 
further directed Rent Controller to issue notice to parties under Section. 
14(11) of the Act and determine misuser charges. Accordingly, Rent 
> 
c Controller, after issuing notice to parties, determined misuser charges and 
apportioned the same between the parties for payment. Tenants filed 
appeal as well as Review Petition and the Tribunal dismissed them. Second 
appeal was filed which was dismissed by the High Court. Hence this 
appeal. 
D 
It was contented for the appellants that they did not intend to contest 
order of eviction passed under clause (k) of proviso to Section 14(1) of 
~· 
.._
the Act and would be ready to hand over the vacant possession of the suit 
property to any party, as directed by the Court: that they could not be 
made liable to pay misuser charges as they were willing to deljver 
E possession of the suit property to lessor or lessee; and that the lease being 
~ 
determined by the lessor, the lessee/landlord had no locus standi in the 
proceeding under the Act. 
On behalf of the respondents, it was contended that appellant-tenants 
co.uld not be absolved of the liability to pay misuser charges since they 
F misused the suit property. 
"-
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court 
.. 
HELD : (Per Mahapatra, J. for himself and Brijesh Kumar, J.): 
G 
1.1. Under clause (k) of proviso to Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent 
Control Act an independent ground of eviction is laid down in case of 
properties obtained on lease by the landlord from the Government or. the 
Delhi Development Authority or the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. It 
is provided in that clause that if the tenant, notwithstanding the previous 
,.., 
notice, used or dealt with the premises in a manner contrary to any 
H condition imposed on the landlord by the Government while giving him 
-
• 
• 
·• 
-
BHARAT SALES LTD. v. LAKSH
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.