D. P. Mohapatra, J. - (1.) Leave is granted.
(2.) 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. The operative portion of the judgment is quoted hereunder : "It was then urged that there is no rationale for the misuser charges demanded by the L and DO. This is really a matter between the L andDO and its lessee. Moreover, the quantification and apportionment of misuser charges are arithmetical matters of fact. I cannot go into all this in a second appeal. Under the circumstances, there is no option but to dismiss the appeal. The parties will pay the misuser charges in accordance with the order dated 14th August, 1984 passed by the learned Rent Controller. Respondent No. 12, that is, the Union of India through the L and DO should quantify the subsequent misuser charges within a period of two months from today. The appellants should cease and desist from misusing the suit premises with effect from 1st January, 2001, failing which an order of eviction shall be deemed to have been passed against them. The appeal is dismissed. There will, however, no order as to costs."
(3.) The appellants are the tenants on the first floor and barsati (hereinafter refered as 'the suit property') of p-2, Conaught Circus, previously known as 2/90, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. The suit property was taken on rent from the predecessor in interest of respondents No. 1 to 11, namely Ram Singh, sometime in 1950. The predecessor in interest of respondents No. 1 to 11 had taken the suit property on lease from the Governor General in Council in 1938. The Governor General in Council is now succeeded by the Union of India acting through the Land and Development Officer (for short 'the L and DO'). It was stipulated in the lease that the leasehold property was to be used for commercial purpose. Despite the stipulation in the lease the lessee i.e. the predecessor in interest of respondents No. 1 to 11 let out the suit property to the appellants for office purpose. The L and DO issued a notice 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 21' x 7' as a tailoring shop. It was specifically stated in the notice that despite the previous notice issued under the L and DO's letter No. 90 (2C.C.)/63-LI, dated 9-2-1965 to stop/remove the misuser, the lessee had failed to comply with the notice. Therefore, in consequence of the failure on the part of the lessee to remedy the aforesaid breach the lessor had decided to determine the lease. The relevant portion of the letter dated 25th October, 1968 is extracted as under : "Please take notice, therefore that in consequence of your failure to remedy the aforsaid breach the Lessor has been pleased to determine the Lease and re-enter upon the premises with effect rom 16-9-68 on and from which date, therefore all your rights and title in the leasehold property in question have ceased. 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 now in the President of India. 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 purose 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., to him." 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 condition of the lease by the tenant in favour of the landlord. The Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition vide order dated 18th August, 1981. The landlord filed an appeal, RCA No. 717 of 1981 before the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi against the order of the Rent Controller. 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 concerned. 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 vs. K. B. Union Club 1981 Rajdhani Law Reprot p. 524, it is admitted that ground of eviction is available and notice under Section 14(11) be directed to be issued." Accordingly, the Rent Controller was directed to issue notice to the L and DO under Section 14(11) of the Act to determine the misuser charges. The parties were directed to appear before the Rent Controller. In compliance 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. 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. Against the said order the appellans herein filed an appeal No. 957 of 1985 before the Rent Control Tribunal. They also filed, though belatedly a petition for review of the order dated 30th August, 1982 on the ground that the counsel appearing for them (appellants) would not make a concession in law that the ground for eviction under clause (k) of proviso to Section 14(1) of the Act had been made out. By the order dated 19th August, 1985 the learned Tribunal dismissed the appeal as well as the review petition filed by the appellants. Therefore, they filed the second appeal before the High Court of Delhi which was decided by the impugned judgment. In the impugned judgment, as noted earlier, the High Court dismissed the appeal.;