In the case on hand the application filed by the appellant for lease of a plot of land was granted by the officer acting on behalf of the President of India.
On receipt of the application the ARC recorded the statement of Shri T.C. Hingorani, Dy.
In the appeal filed by the appellant herein against the order of the ARC the Rent Control Tribunal referring to the order of remand passed by the Tribunal, set aside the order passed by the ARC dismissing the eviction petition and remanded the case to him with a specific order that since the case was remanded for the purpose of fixing the companypensation penalty for misuser of the premises under Section 14 11 of the Act, after hearing the parties and the LDO, the ARC had numberoption other than fixing the companypensation or misuser charges as per the provisions in section 14 11 of the Act that it was number open to the ARC to go into the question whether the petition itself was maintainable or number.
Therefore the proceeding under section 14 11 of the Act was closed and the file was companysigned to the record room vide order dated 27.1.1997.
Ltd. that the breaches had number been removed so far in spite of the numberice given by the lessor vide letter No.
A registered agreement was entered into between the superior lessor and his lessee in which were incorporated the companyditions of lease.
Land Development Officer who stated, inter alia that the agreement for lease with the appellant was signed by LDO on 24.12.1965 and the document was registered vide S.I. 1986 Book No.1, Volume No.1490 pages 107 120 and was registered on 17.3.1966 in pursuance of the agreement a perpetual lease deed was to be signed a companyy of the perpetual lease deed was given to the appellant with the agreement for lease and this was signed in advance by appellant Ms. Rashida Begum.
During pendency of the proceeding before the ARC after remand, the respondent filed an application praying for dismissal of the petition as numberformal lease deed had been executed between the LDO and the appellant.
The premises in question is described as plot number8, Block No.48, Shopping Centre, Malcha Marg, Diplomatic Enclave, New Delhi.
On appeal the Rent Control Tribunal by judgment dated 22.11.99, set aside the order of the ARC and remanded the matter to ARC to proceed to determine the damages under section 14 1 of the Act after issuing numberice to the LDO.
One such shop companyering an area of 780 sq.
The said Judgment of the High Court is under challenge in these appeals.
The tenant, who is respondent herein, filed appeal No.
The parties were directed to appear before the ARC on 2.12.1999.
The appellant was allotted the plot of land by the Union of India on which the premises in question stand.
A building was companystructed and a portion of it was rented out in favour of the respondent herein.
The perpetual lease deed was to be signed on companypletion of the building and after clearance of Government dues.
on the ground floor of the building was let out to the respondent vide rent deed dated 24th December, 1976 for companymercial purpose at a rental of Rs.2340/ per month.
The lessee appellant herein was directed to handover peacefully possession of the premises including the land, building, fittings and fixtures etc.
25.7.1983.
SAO 3/2000 before the High Court challenging the judgment order of the Tribunal which was allowed by the judgment dated 10th May, 2000.
The Settlement Commissioner, Land and Development Office of the Ministry of Works and Housing issued the numberice dated 24th September, 1983 to the appellant alleging that there were breaches of the agreement to the effect that the ground floor was being used as post office and office of Usha Intercontinental General Sales Pvt.
Thereafter the appellant applied for sanction of plan for erection of the building on the plot and on the plan being sanctioned by the New Delhi Municipal Committee, the appellant raised the companystruction upon the land with two companymercial shops on the ground floor and a residential quarter on the first floor.
After receipt of the said numberice from the Assistant Settlement Commissioner the appellant by the numberice dated 24.10.1983 terminated the agreement in favour of the respondent with immediate effect and required him to vacate the premises and handover vacant possession of the same within 15 days of receipt of the numberice.
A registered agreement for lease was executed between the President of India through the Land and Development Officer for short the LDO and the appellant on 24th December, 1965 setting out the terms and companyditions which were binding on both the parties.
The Deputy Land Development Officer further stated that number signing of perpetual lease does number in any way affect the provisions as companytained in the agreement between the parties.
In pursuance of the said agreement possession of the land was delivered to the lessee and permission was granted by the New Delhi Municipal Committee for companystruction of a building.
It was further stated in the numberice that in the circumstances the lessor had reentered the said premises in exercise of the powers companyferred on him by clause XXI of the indenture of lease w.e.f.
to the Assistant Engineer Mr. Gandotra in the Development Office.
It was stated in the document that till such time as a formal document of lease is executed and in absence of such a document the terms and companyditions set out therein shall be binding on the lessee and can be enforced in the same manner as if a formal document of lease has been executed between the parties.
The Additional Rent Controller for short the ARC , Delhi by order dated 27th January, 1997 dismissed the eviction petition filed by the appellant.
These appeals filed by the landlord are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in SAO No.3/2000 and CMP No.135/2000 setting aside the judgment of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 22.11.1999 in RCA No.127/97 and companyfirming the judgment dated 27.1.1997 of the Additional Rent Controller dismissing the eviction petition filed by the appellant as number maintainable.
On companysideration of the matter the ARC held that in the circumstances of the case where there is numberformal lease between the parties numberquestion of violation of terms of lease arises, number there is any question of damages under Section 14 11 of the Act.
P.MOHAPATRA,J. Leave granted.
Since the tenant respondent herein failed to vacate the premises the appellant filed the petition No.207/87 under section 14 1 k of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for short the Act seeking eviction of the respondent on the ground of misuser of the premises in question.
LIV/9/48 S 8 /83 dated 22.3.1983.
The Tribunal also took numbere of the prevailing practice of the Government issuing only an allotment letter and imposing companyditions therein, without executing a lease deed and in case of breach of any of the companyditions imposed upon the landlord under the agreement recourse was taken by him to clause k of the proviso to section 14 1 for eviction of his tenant.
