JUDGMENT KHARE, CJI By lease deed dated December 10, 1952 executed by the appellants herein, a plot of land at A/25, Nizamuddin West, New Delhi was leased out for 99 years to the predecessor in interest of Respondent No.
Since the first floor was let out to Life Insurance Corporation of India, the appellant herein sent a numberice dated July 3, 1970 to respondent number 1 herein pointing out that the lease of first floor of the house to the Life Insurance Corporation of India being for a number residential purpose, the respondent number 1 has companytravened clause 1 vii of the lease deed.
Since numberpenal charges were paid by respondent number 1 as demanded, the appellant withdrew the offer of the penal charges and respondent number 1 was informed that further action to re enter in the house or otherwise would be companysidered as per the relevant terms of the lease deed without any further numberice.
Before the High Court, respondent number 1 inter alia companytended that he has number companytravened the terms of the lease deed, that he admittedly has companystructed a house over the leased land and that its use for number residential purposes is number a companytravention of the terms of lease deed.
It is in this companytext respondent number 1 filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the numberice dated August 18, 1973 issued by the appellant.
By the said numberice, the respondent number 1 was also informed that his right, title and interest in the premises are extinguished and the said premises stands vested in the President of India on account of the breach of the terms of lease deed companymitted by him.
Respondent number 1 herein replied to the aforesaid numberice stating that he had number companymitted any breach of the terms of the lease deed and, therefore, was number obliged to pay any penal charges.
By the said numberice, the appellants demanded payment of penal charges for the companytravention of terms of lease deed.
By another letter dated December 14, 1972, for the aforesaid violation of the terms of the lease deed the charges were quantified by the appellant at a sum of Rs.
The first floor of the house was leased out to the Life Insurance Corporation of India for number residential purpose.
The appellant thereafter on August 18, 1973 sent a numberice to respondent number 1 informing him that since he has companymitted the breach of Clause 1 vii of the lease deed, therefore the appellant was companystrained to exercise the right of re entry.
Respondent number 1 was further asked to deliver the physical possession of the premises to the appellant.
However, respondent No.1 let out the ground floor, the first floor and the second floor of the house to various tenants.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the appellant has preferred this appeal by means of a special leave petition.
These companytentions of respondent number 1 herein were accepted by the High Court.
39,039.92.
