SHRI MUNSHI RAM AND ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 377 · Decided: 10-08-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

SHRI MUNSHI RAM AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
AUGUST 10, 2000 
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.] 
B 
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 : 
S.14( l)(k)-Misuser of premises by tenant-Eviction of-Land leased 
out on condition that land and building constructed on it should not be used for 
other than residential purpose-Tenant running a shop in the premises-
Petition by landlord for eviction of tenant-Notice by Delhi Development 
Authority to landlord stating that premises being used for commercial purpose 
contrary to terms of lease, the lease deed has become void and lessor got rig hr 
to re-enter-Additional Rent Controller directing tenants to pay misuser charges, 
and to stop .further misuser failing which order of eviction would be deemed to 
h~ve been passed against them-Held, in view of misuser of premises and DDA 
insisting to act upon the notice, DDA cannot be directed to permit continued 
misuser contrary to tem1s of lease-Delhi Development Act, 1957-Ss. 7 and 8. 
Respondent no. 3 purchased the suit premises which form part of a 
building constructed on the land given on perpetual lease by the Delhi 
Improvement Trust, the predecessor of the Delhi Development Authority, 
respondent no.2, to the original lessor with the condition that the lessee 
should. not use the said land and building that might be erected thereon 
during the term of the lease for any other purpose than for the purpose of 
residential house without the consent of the lessor. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
In 1974, respomlent no. 3 filed a petition under s.14(1) (k) of the 
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 seeking eviction of the appellants, who were 
tenants in suit premises and were running a shop therein. On 4.1.1982, the 
DDA issued a notice to respondent no. 3 stating that the said premises were 
being used for commercial-cum-residential purposes, which was contrary 
G 
to the terms of the lease and, therefore, the lease became void and the 
lessor got the right to re-enter after cancellation of lease. The notice 
further stated that the lease had been cancelled by the DDA on 23.12.1981 
for breach of clause l(VI) and it would take possession of the land and the 
building. Ultimately the Additional Rent Controller passed an order on 
H 
377 
A 
B 
c 
D 
378 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
6.9.1988 directing the appellants to pay within two months the past mis-
user charges to respondent no. 3 for being deposited with the DDA, to pay 
further compensation/charges to DDA as may be demanded by it and to 
stop misuser of the premises. The order further stated that in the event of 
non-compliance with the directions, the order of eviction under s.14(1)(k) 
of the Act would be deemed to have been passed against the appellants. 
The order was upheld by the Rent Control Tribunal as also by the High 
Court. Aggrieved, the tenants filed the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : There has been misuser of the premises in breach of Clause 
l(VI) of the terms of the lease. The ground of eviction is Clause (k) of 
s.14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The unauthorised user would 
give the paramount lessor the right to re-enter after cancellation of the 
lease deed. The Delhi Development Authority has been insisting to act 
upon the notice dated 4.1.1982 issued to respondent no. 3. The stand of the 
DDA is that after due payment for past misuser, the lessee is bound to 
discontinue the misuse in future. It cannot be said that despite contraven-
tion of the lease, the paramount lessor is debarred from exercising its 
rights under the terms of the lease for absence of providing a user under 
s.7 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 in the master plan or under s.8 in 
E 
the zonal development plan. The DDA cannot be directed to permit contin-
ued misuser contrary to the terms of the lease on the ground that zonal 
development plan of the area has not been framed. However, the appel-
lants are granted two months time to comply with the order of the Addi-
tional Rent Controller. [381-B-C; 383-C; F; G] 
F 
Dr. K. Madan v. Krishnawati (Smt.) and Anr., [1996] 6 SCC 707, relied 
on. 
Narain Das v. Manohar Lal & Anr., [1988] Sup. SCC 432, held inappli-
cable 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3095 of 1990. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.2.90 of the Delhi High Court in 
C.W.P. No. 3260 of 1989. 
K.N. Rawal, Additional Solicitor General, D.D. Thakur, A.B. Rohatgi, 
H 
Vijay Prakash, Siddharth Choudh
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.