JUDGEMENT
VIKRAMAJIT SEN -
(1.)The Respondent/Landlord has filed the present Eviction Petition, inter alia, under Section 14(1 )(k) of the Delhi Rent Control Act which was dismissed by the Additional Rent Controller in terms of his Order dated 31.7.1995. Thereafter, the Landlord filed an Appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal. By his Order dated 1.5.2000, while allowing the Appeal, the Tribunal observed as follows:
"..... of DDA and the notice served upon the appellant sufficiently shows that premises are being used for office purpose which apparently is a use contrary to the conditions imposed upon him by DDA while giving him lease of land on which the premises are situate. In such an eventuality there was no other option open to the Ld. trial court than to grant the respondent time to comply with the conditions imposed by DDA referred in the clause or pay to that authority such amount by way of compensation as the case may be. In view of the foregoing reasons I accept the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and allow the eviction petition U/S 14(1 )(k) DRC Act and direct the respondent to stop the misuser of the premises within one month of the date of this order and also pay misuser charges as imposed by DDA the amount of which would be ascertained by the Controller by holding Enquiry U/S 14(11) DPC Act. Parties are directed to appear before the Ld. trial court for the aforesaid purpose on 16.5.2000."
(2.)In the Grounds of Appeal, it has been asserted that several "substantial questions of law of great general public importance which need authoritative pronouncement" have arisen. But from a perusal of the five grounds raised they do not partake of this nature but calls for this Court taking a view contrary to that of the first Appellate Court. Be that as it may, since arguments were heard, I shall overlook this technicality. It must, however, borne in mind that the intention of the Legislation is that finality must attach to the judgment of the Rent Control Tribunal on facts, as well as the application of law in respect of those facts.
(3.)Mr. G.N. Aggarwal, Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant/Tenant has strongly contended that the Tribunal had (a) no jurisdiction to direct the Tenant to stop the misuser of the premises within one month of the date of the Order and (b) direct the Tenant to pay misuser charges as imposed by the DDA. It was his contention that this power has been specifically granted only to the Controller. Reliance was placed on the decisions reported as Faqir Chand\/s. Ram Rattan BhanotMR 1973 SC 921, M/s. Curewell (India) Ltd. Vs. Sahib Sing'h(dead by L.Rs.) and Others. 1992 (2) RCR 318 and a decision of a Single Judge of this Court entitled as Ashok Kumar, Vijay Kumar, Kimtilal, Subhash Grower Vs. Usha Rani, 1993 RLR 367.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.