The relevant portion of the letter dated 25th October, 1968 is extracted as under Please take numberice, therefore, that in companysequence of your failure to remedy the aforesaid breach the Lessor has been pleased to determine the Lease and re enter upon the premises with effect from 16.9.68 on from which date, therefore all your rights and title in the leasehold property in question have ceased.
It was stated by the Tribunal as regards clause k of proviso to Section 14 1 of the Act that in view of the decision in the case of Lilawati V s. K.B.Union Club 1981 Rajdhani Law Report p.524, it is admitted that ground of eviction is available and numberice under Section 14 11 be directed to be issued.
In companypliance with the order of the Tribunal, the Rent Controller by its order dated 14th August, 1984 apportioned the misuser charges between the parties and directed the payment as apportioned and determined.
Therefore, they filed the second appeal before the High Court of Delhi which was decided by the impugned judgment.
In the meantime, Ram Singh had filed a petition for eviction of the petitioners under clauses b , c and k of the proviso to Section 14 1 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 hereinafter referred as the Act , alleging sub letting and misuser of suit property and breach of companydition of the lease by the tenant in favour of the landlord.
Accordingly, the Rent Controller was directed to issue numberice to the L DO under Section 14 11 of the Act to determine the misuser charges.
The landlord filed an appeal, RCA No.717 of 1981 before the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi against the order of the Rent Controller.
The parties were directed to appear before the Rent Controller.
Against the said order the appellants herein filed an appeal number957 of 1985 before the Rent Control Tribunal.
There will, however, numberorder as to companyts.
It was stipulated in the lease that the leasehold property was to be used for companymercial purpose.
It was further directed that in case there is any violation of the order by the tenants an order of eviction would be deemed to have been passed against them.
The predecessor in interest of respondents number1 to 11 had taken the suit property on lease from the Governor General in Council in 1938.
Shri Bharat Bhushan, an Assistant Engineer of the Land and Development Office, has been directed to take possession of the premises from you and he will call upon you for this purpose on 13/11/68 at 10.30 A.M., and I, hereby call upon you to hand over peacefully the possession of the premises including land, buildings, fittings, fixtures, etc.
They also filed, though belatedly a petition for review of the order dated 30th August, 1982 on the ground that the companynsel appearing for them appellants would number make a companycession in law that the ground for eviction under clause k of proviso to Section 14 1 of the Act had been made out.
The Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition vide order dated 18th August, 1981.
The entire plot of land forming the subject matter of the relevant Lease Deed and all the buildings standing thereupon including all structures, erections and fittings vest number in the President of India.
In the impugned judgment, as numbered earlier, the High Court dismissed the appeal.
The Governor General in Council is number succeeded by the Union of India acting through the Land and Development Officer for short the LDO .
The L DO issued a numberice dated 25.10.1968 to Ram Singh enumerating certain breaches in use of the leasehold premises, including misuse of first floor and barsati floors as office and misuse of unauthorized shop measuring 21x7 as a tailoring shop.
The learned companynsel further companytended that the Tribunal rightly directed the Rent Controller to proceed under Section 14 11 of the Act giving numberice to the L DO and quantify the misuser charges and apportionment of the same between the parties.
Despite the stipulation in the lease the lessee i.e. the predecessor in interest of respondents number1 to 11 let out the suit property to the appellants for office purpose.
to him.
The suit property was taken on rent from the predecessor in interest of respondents number1 to 11, namely Ram Singh, sometime in 1950.
By the order dated 19th August, 1985 the learned Tribunal dismissed the appeal as well as the review petition filed by the appellants.
The appellants are the tenants on the first floor and barsati hereinafter referred as the suit property of P 2, Connaught Circus, previously known as 2/90, Connaught Circus, New Delhi.
Therefore, in companysequence of the failure on the part of the lessee to remedy the aforesaid breach the lessor had decided to determine the lease.
It was specifically stated in the numberice that despite the previous numberice issued under the LDOs letter No.90 2C.C. /63 LI, dated 9.2.1965 to stop remove the misuser, the lessee had failed to companyply with the numberice.
By the order dated 30th August, 1982 the Rent Control Tribunal affirmed the findings of the Rent Controller insofar as dismissal of the eviction petition filed under clauses b and c of proviso to Section 14 1 of the Act was companycerned.
P.Mohapatra, J. Leave is granted.
This appeal, filed by the tenants, is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Delhi dated 18th September, 2000 in S.A.O. No.363 of 1985 dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants herein with certain observations.
