SATYA PRAKASH AND ORS. Vs. BALRAM BHASIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the older of the Rent Control Tribunal allowing the appeal of the tenant who was sought to be evicted in execution of a conditional eviction order passed against him. Briefly stated the facts of the case are these.

(2.) The respondent is a tenant under the appellant of certain premises in Connaught Circus, New Delhi on a rent of Rs. 100.00 per month. These premises are in a building constructed over a plot of land which is on lease from the President of India to the appellant and the use of the building is controlled by the terms of the lease. One of the terms of the lease admittedly is that the ground floor of the building in Connaught Circus will be used for commercial purposes and the first and the second floors will be used for residential purposes. The respondent is in occupation of the premises which are to be used for residential purposes. On the ground that the respondent was using the premises in his possession in violation of the terms .of the lease granted of the land in Gonnaught Circus to the appellant and also on the ground that he had not paid the rent due to him an eviction petition was filed against the respondent by the appellant on March 21, 1972 by invoking the provisions of clauses (a) & (k) of the proviso to Sub -Section (1) of Sec. 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act').

(3.) Inasmuch as the respondent complied with the order passed under Sec. 15(1) of the said Act, the ground available under clause (a) ceased to exist and the petition on that ground was dismissed. With regard to the ground under clause (k) the Rent Controller passed a conditional order of eviction on October 18, 1976. The conditional order was to the effect that the respondent should pay the stated sum of money as damages for misuse of the premises and damages for some unauthorised construction within a specified period, remove the unauthorised structured and stop the misuse of the premises by using the same as commercial within a specified period. If he does so he would not liable to be evicted, otherwise he was liable to suffer eviction. Aggrieved by this order the respondent filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal The respondent's appeal was partly accepted. As far as unauthorised structure was concerned it was stated that the same had since been demolished. The Rent Contro unauthorised l Tribunal by an order dated October 30, 1979 directed payment of damages for un -authorised construction within one month, payment of the charges for misuse of the premises for commercial purposes and stoppage of the commercial use of the premises also with regard to which made certain directions. I shall presently have an occasion to read that order at some length. On October 28, 1979 the respondent moved an application to record satisfaction of the terms of the order dated October 30, 1979. This application was ordered to come up for hearing on February 8, 1980. In the meanwhile, on December 7, 1979 the appellant filed an application for execution of the order dated October 30, 1979. It was stated in the said application that the respondent had neither paid the moneys stipulated in the order of October 30, 1979 nor stopped misuses of the premises. Warrants of possession were issued on this application. When the warrants of possession were sought to be executed the premises were found to be locked. Therefore, on January 2, 1980 an application was moved by the appellant for permission to break open the locks and make forcible entry into the premises in question. This application was allowed on January 8, 1980. The warrants of execution were sought to be executed on January 21, 1980 by breaking open the lock. Commission was taken of the premises except of one room when the respondent is said to have appeared on the site. As the respondent could not show any receipt for payment for money and contended that he had stopped the misuse of the premises and thus complied with the order dated October 30, 1979, the bailiff sealed the one room and deposited the key in Court. On February 1, 1980 the appellant oved the Court that he may be handed over the key of the sealed portion and allowed to take its possession. On March 5, 1980 the executing Court allowed the application dated February 1, 1980 moved by the appellant and directed possession of the room to be given to the appellant. The respondent appealed against this order. The appeal was heard by the Rent Control Tribunal (Coram: Shri V.S. Aggarwal). The appeal was allowed and it was held that on proper construction of the order dated October 30, 1979 if the tenant had stopped the misuse though not paid the damages for unauthorised structures or charges for misuser, the tenant was not liable to suffer eviction. Aggrieved against that order the appellant has filed the present appeal.