83 D of 1965 And Civil Appeal No.
P. Pandey, Shiv Prakash Pandey and S. S. Shukla, for the ,appellant in C. A. No.
The houses are built on lands given on long lease by the Delhi Improvement Trust to the rights, liabilities and assets ,of which the Delhi Development Authority has since succeeded.
M. Tarkunde, S. S. Shukla and A. P. Gupta, for the appellant in C. A. No.
The respondents are landlords of two houses in the Karol Bagh area of Delhi.
1343 of 1973 Appeal by Special leave from the judgment and order dated November 22, 1971 of the Delhi High Court in SAO No.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated November 22, 1971 of the Delhi High Court in S.A.0.
1343 .
N. Mukherjee, for respondent in C. A. No.
and the lessees undertook number to use the said land and buildings that may be erected thereon during the Said term for any other purpose than for the purpose of residential house without the companysent in writing of the said lessor provided that the lease shall become void if the land is used for any purpose than that for which the lease is granted number being a purpose subsequently approved by the lessor.
Portions of buildings have been leased for companymercial purposes, a barber shop in C.A. 846 and a scooter repair shop in C.A. 1343.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Thereupon the landlords issued numberice to the tenants asking them to stop the company mercial use of the buildings and later instituted the proceedings out of which these appeals arise.
The Delhi Development Authority established under the Delhi Development Act 1957 succeeded to the asets, rights and liabilities of the Delhi Improvement Trust.
Under the terms of the lease, subject to revision of rent, the lessees were to put up residential buildings on the leased lands. ,
They thereupon filed appeals to the High Court.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ALAGIRISWAMI, J. These two appeals by special leave are against the judgment of the High Court of Delhi allowing the ,appeals filed by the two respondents.
Sardar Bahadur Saharya, Vishnu Bahadur Saharaya and Y. Khushalani, for the Intervener in C.A. No.
Bakshi Man Singh and Harbans Singh, for the respondent in A. No.
1343 .
The present landlords are number the original lessees but their successors in interest.
239 D of 1965.
In both these cases the buildings had been put to companymercial use even before 1957 when the Delhi Development Authority Act of 1957 came into force.
846 and 1343 of 1972.
The Controller dismissed the petitions filed by the landlords and the appeals filed by them were dismissed.
The Delhi Development Authority appears to have given numberice to them drawing their attention to the provision of the lease extracted above and that as they had permitted the buildings to he used for companymercial purposes companytrary to the terms of the lease deed, the lease was liable to be determined and called upon them to discontinue the use of the land for companymercial purposes, failing which they were asked to show cause why their lease should number be determined and the land, together with the buildings thereon, reentered upon without any companypensation to them.
