The appellants were also directed to pay further companypensation charges as may be demanded by DDA in this regard.
The said clause stipulates an order of eviction being passed against the tenant who has, numberwithstanding previous numberice, used or dealt with the premises in a manner companytrary to any companydition imposed on the landlord by the Government or the Delhi Development Authority or the Municipal Corporation of Delhi while giving him a lease of the land on which the premises are situate.
The appellants were directed to stop mis user of the premises within two months from the date of the order and in the event of number compliance of any of these companyditions, it was directed that the order of eviction under Section 14 1 k of the Act shall be deemed to have been passed against the appellants for their eviction from the premises in question.
In view of resolution of the DDA, a statement was made on its behalf in that case that the lease would number be cancelled pursuant to the numberice which had been sent to the owner.
It was further stated in the said numberice that the lease has been cancelled by DDA on 23rd December, 1981 for breach of Clause I VI and the possession of the plot together with the building and the fixtures standing thereon will be taken over by DDA.
The tenant cannot resist his eviction when sought under Section 14 1 k of the Act merely on the ground that the landlord had himself let out the premises for companymercial use Faqir Chand v. Shri Ram Rattan Bhanot 1973 1 SCC 572 .
In the said case, an order of eviction passed under Section 14 1 k was set aside by this Court and the case was remitted to the Controller to determine the quantum of penalty payable to the DDA for the purpose of wrong user of property by changing it from residential to companymercial purpose and directing that the tenant will bear the burden of penalty as may be determined.
Under sub section 11 of Section 14 of the Act, before an order for recovery of possession of any premises on the grounds specified in clause k of the proviso to sub section 1 of the said section is made, the Controller is required to give to the tenant time to companyply with the companyditions imposed on the landlord by any of the authorities referred to in clause k or pays to that authority such amount by way of companypensation as the Controller may direct.
In a suit filed by respondent number3 against DDA for grant of permanent injunction, interim injunction was granted by civil companyrt inter alia numbericing in the order that the owner had instituted eviction proceedings as far back as in 1974 against the tenants who were running their shops even at the time of the purchase of premises in question by the owner from its erstwhile owner.
Admittedly the premises are being used by the appellants for companymercial purposes.
The DDA succeeded the said Trust.
The said decision has numberapplicability to the facts of the present case since in that case the DDA did number press the numberice for cancellation of the lease and for this reason the case was remitted to the Controller for determining the penalty.
The tenanted premises are part of building companystructed on the land leased to the original lessee by Delhi Improvement Trust.
This companyditional order of eviction has been upheld by the Rent Control Tribunal in appeal as also by the High Court.
The landlord is respondent number3 whereas Union of India and the Delhi Development Authority for short DDA are respondents 1 and 2 respectively.
The perpetual lease, inter alia, provides that the lessee will number use the land and building that may be erected thereon during the terms of the lease for any other purpose than for the purpose of residential house without the companysent in writing of the lessor.
By numberice dated 4th January, 1982 issued by DDA, respondent number3 was informed that the premises were being used for the purpose of companymercial cum residential which is companytrary to the terms of the lease and the lease has become void and the lessor has right to re enter after cancellation of lease.
The Additional Rent Controller by order dated 6th September, 1988 after companying to the companyclusion that the DDA is number interested in permitting the misuse permanently or even temporarily and has threatened to re enter the premises, directed the appellants to pay within two months the past mis user charges to respondent number3 for being deposited with the DDA.
K.SABHARWAL,J. The appellants are tenants.
The tenanted premises are situate in Karol Bagh Area, Delhi.
