P. K. Babri ( 1 ) IN all these cases same questions of fact and laware involved. Hence, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. ( 2 ) THE appellants are occupying different portions of propertyno. 15a/36. Western Extension Area, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, as tenantsunder the respondent. The eviction petitions were brought against thesetenants by the landlord on the ground of eviction covered by Clause (k) ofthan proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Controlact (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). ( 3 ) THE two Courts below have given findings that premises have beenlet out for commercial purposes. It is not in dispute that according to theterms of the lease under which the property is held by the respondent, theproperty could he used only for residential purposes. The ground of evictioncovered by Clause (k) was upheld by both the Courts and there is no challenge to the said findings of the two Courts below. Clause (k) reads asfollows: "that the tenant has, notwithstanding previous notice, used or dealtwith the. premises in a manner contrary to any condition imposedon the landlord by the Govt. or the Delhi Development Authorityor the Municipal Corporation of Delhi while giving him a lease ofthe land on which the premises are situate. " ( 4 ) THE question in all these cases is the form in which the ordershould have been made keeping in view the provisions of Section 14 (11) ofthe Act which reads as follows : "no order for the recovery of possession of any premises shall bemade on the ground specified in Clause (k) of the proviso to Sub-section (1), if the tenant, within such time as may be specified inthis behalf by the Controller, complies with the condition imposedon the landlord by any of the authorities referred to in that clauseor pays to that authority such amount by way of compensation asthe Controller may direct. " ( 5 ) THIS particular clause has led to lot of litigation between thelandlords and the tenants and up-to-date no solution could be found whichcould give effect to this particular clause in a proper manner. " ( 5 ) THIS particular clause has led to lot of litigation between thelandlords and the tenants and up-to-date no solution could be found whichcould give effect to this particular clause in a proper manner. Before cominginto force of the Delhi Rent Control Act and the Delhi Development Act,leases were being granted by the Land and Development Office and theauthorities were perhaps more liberal in the matter of violation of the termsof the lease and the residential premises were being converted into commercial premises as the need of the population in Delhi grew. The Rentcontrol Act was enforced in Delhi for the first time in 1952 and thereafterin 1955. In order to check the haphazard growth of Delhi, the Delhidevelopment Act was brought into force in 1962 which contemplatedpreparation of the Master Plan which would identify different parts ofdelhi and prescribe user of those parts of Delhi for particular purposes. Thedelhi Development Act also contemplated framing of Zonal Developmentplans which were to indicate particularly the user of buildings and land in aparticular Zone. The Legislature in its wisdom provided for Section 14and Section 29 in the said Act to see that any violation of the Master Planor Zonal Development Plan with regard to the user of the particular land orbuilding should not go unpunished. It was made a penal offence to use anyland or building for a purpose other than mentioned in the Master Plan orzonal Development Plan. The Legislature could have easily omitted certainprovisions of Section 14 (11) so that if any tenant is found using a particularpremises for a purpose in violation of the terms of the lease granted by thegovernment authorities then he should have either been made to face theeviction if he was not to stop user of such premises in conformity with theterms of the lease. But the Legislature did not amend the provisions withregard to the payment of compensation as the Controller may direct whichled the Courts to interpret this provision. When the authority was to agree toaccept compensation, the Controller was required to determine the saidamount of compensation and could also proportionately distribute theliability between the landlord and the tenant where the landlord initially hadpermitted the misuser. When the authority was to agree toaccept compensation, the Controller was required to determine the saidamount of compensation and could also proportionately distribute theliability between the landlord and the tenant where the landlord initially hadpermitted the misuser. ( 6 ) THE question which remained subject-matter of issue before thehigh Court in different judgments and even before the Supreme Court insome of the judgments was whether the tenant should be required to stopmisuser of the building or not by certain date. If the Legislature in itswisdom had modified this particular provision of Section 14 (11) when itframed the Delhi Development Act in 1962, the problem would not haveremained if the words "pays to that authority such amount by way of compensation as the Controller may direct" had been omitted from Section14 (11 ). ( 7 ) THE object of having an organized development of Delhi,which is now to be again given a shape by having another Master Plan,could have been easily achieved to some extent if this provision bad beenmodified as suggested above, but unfortunately the Legislature although hadissued ordinance making more drastic the provisions for dealing with themisuser of buildings and for illegal construction of the buildings yet has notthought it fit to modify this particular provision, of Section 14 (11 ). If thisprovision had been omitted then the tenants, who take the premises on rentfrom the landlord may be for commercial purposes, would have beenrequired to stop the misuser or face the eviction and there could not havebeen left any option to the Controller or to the authorities for passing anyorder for paying of any compensation. ( 8 ) COMING to the facts of the present cases, the Delhi Developmentauthority is the paramount lessor and is to decide as to whether it is to permit misuser of the premises, if so, for how long period and also show as towhether it would be interested in having any compensation. ( 8 ) COMING to the facts of the present cases, the Delhi Developmentauthority is the paramount lessor and is to decide as to whether it is to permit misuser of the premises, if so, for how long period and also show as towhether it would be interested in having any compensation. The Additionalrent Controller, in the present cases, had passed an order requiring that thetenant would stop the misuser if some target date is fixed by the Delhidevelopment Authority by which the misuser of the properties are to bestopped and he directed that compensation would be determined and wouldbe paid by the landlord and the tenant in equal proportion, the Tribunal onthe other hand in appeals had required the tenants to stop the misuser andhad left the question of payment of compensation to be determined by thecivil Courts. ( 9 ) I am afraid that the Tribunal has not appreciated the provisions ofsection 14 (11) in proper perspective. The Delhi Development Authority, inthe present cases, has filed affidavit, on notice being given to the Delhi Development Authority, which is at page 214 in SAO No. 92/86. This affidavithas been filed by the then Secretary of the Delhi Development Authority inwhich it has been mentioned that as per the latest policy being followed bythe Delhi Development Authority the prosecution for misuser in Westernextension Area has been suspended for the time being as per the orders ofthe former Lt. Governor as there is likelihood of permission being grantedfor commercialisation of the area after charging certain dues in accordancewith the provisions of Master Plan/zonal Development Plan. ( 10 ) KEEPING in view this stand of the Delhi Development Authoritythe question which arises for decision is as to what order should be made inthese cases which should meet with the requirement of Section 14 (11 ). ( 11 ) THE provisions of Section 14 (11) of the Delhi Rent Control Actcame up for consideration in the case of Faqir Chand v. Ram Rattan Bhanot, air 1973 SC 921 . The said case also pertained to a property located inkarol Bagh. The High Court had taken the view that the misuser was inviolation of Zonal Development Plan and the same being a penal offenceunder Sections14 and 29 of the Delhi Development Act, the Controller hasno option but to direct stoppage of the misuser by the tenant and in default toevict the tenant. The High Court had taken the view that the misuser was inviolation of Zonal Development Plan and the same being a penal offenceunder Sections14 and 29 of the Delhi Development Act, the Controller hasno option but to direct stoppage of the misuser by the tenant and in default toevict the tenant. The Supreme Court examined the facts of the said case andfound that no Zonal Development Plan had been prepared and had alsofound that there was only violation of the term of the lease granted by theimprovement Trust and the lessor had the option of condoning the misuserand thus, the matter was remanded to the Controller to decide the questionafter giving notice to the Delhi Development Authority which was thesuccessor-in-interest of the Improvement Trust. The Supreme Court alsofound that there has not come into existence any Zonal Development Plan. It also found that under proviso to Section 14 of the Delhi Developmentact, if there is any misuser in existence prior to coming into force of themaster Plan/zonal Development Plan then the said misuser could becontinued subject to such terms and conditions, as may be prescribed bythe Delhi Development Authority. It is. hence, evident that if a Zonaldevelopment Plan has come into existence and misuser takes place aftercoming into existence of Zonal Development Plan then in such a case thedelhi Development Authority would perhaps have no power to allowcontinuance of misuser till either the Zonal Development Plan is modified ornew Master Plan comes into existence providing for any different user ofthat particular building. ( 12 ) IN the present case, it is not the case of the respondent that thismisuser was in violation of the Zonal Development Plan and had come intoexistence after the enforcement of any Zonal Development Plan. ( 13 ) I may refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court given inpunjab National Bank v. Arjun Dev Arora and Others, (1986) 4 SCC 660,where the Supreme Court directed the authorities to fix quantum of penaltyafter hearing Counsel for the parties and the Delhi Development Authority. The judgment has not dealt with the question as to whether any directionshould be given for stopping the misuser. ( 14 ) IN Civil Appeal No. 2210/87. Narain Das v. Manohar Lal andanother, decided on 8/09/1987, similar question again came up forconsideration before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found that thelt. The judgment has not dealt with the question as to whether any directionshould be given for stopping the misuser. ( 14 ) IN Civil Appeal No. 2210/87. Narain Das v. Manohar Lal andanother, decided on 8/09/1987, similar question again came up forconsideration before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found that thelt. Governor had stayed the action with regard to misuser and thus, thesupreme Court remanded the case back to the authorities for requiring thecontroller to determine the quantum of compensation payable to the Delhidevelopment Authority for the purpose of misuser of the property and thetenant will bear the said penalty as may be determined. It was also madeclear that if the Delhi Development Authority was to give fresh notice forcancellation of lease on the ground of breach of the terms of the lease, thelandlord was free to take any action in accordance with law in future. ( 15 ) IN Tilak Raj v. Surinder Kaur etc. . 1973 0 Rajlr 62, the High Court while dealing with the provisions of Sub-section (11) required that the Controller should issue notice to the Delhi Development Authority to ascertain if it was prepared to accept compensation forthe misuser. ( 16 ) SO, it appears that a direction regarding stoppage of misuser canbe given by the Controller in a case where the Delhi Development Authoritytakes a firm stand that such misuser must stop by aparticular date. If thedelhi Development Authority is dithering in the matter and is consideringand re-considering the question as to whether misuser should be stopped inresidential buildings, there is no option for the Court but to require the Delhidevelopment Authority to determine at least the amount of compensationfor the past misuser and get it realised from the tenant in order to save himfrom being evicted under the aforesaid ground. ( 17 ) IT is quite clear that if the Delhi Development Authority at anypoint of time takes a policy decision that in future by some particular datethe Delhi Development Authority is to enforce strictly the conformity of thepremises in accordance with the Master Plan and according to the terms ofthe lease and not to permit any sort of misuser, then the Delhi Developmentauthority has to declare that policy publicly and give a particular futuredate by which the citizens could be made aware about its policy that fromthat date onward there would be granted no permission for misuser of anyresidential building. If the owners are misuser of the premises in violation ofthe terms of the lease, the Delhi Development Authority can easily enforcethe compliance with the terms of the lease by cancelling the lease and takingover the property. Where the tenant is misusing the property, the landlordhas to take steps to get the tenant to conform with the provisions of thelease-deed and the authorities under the Rent Control Act could also requirethe tenant to stop the misuser. If the Legislature omits the clause regardingthe payment of compensation then it would become very easy for the Rentcontrol Authorities to pass eviction orders if the tenants do not stop themisuser. But it is for the Legislature to make up its mind and make necessaryamendments in the Delhi Rent Control Act. ( 18 ) COUNSEL for the appellants have also prayed by moving certainapplications that the landlord may be required to move the Delhi Development Authoirty for getting the freehold rights in the property in question asthe same are now being permitted by the Delhi Development Authority andthe appellants are prepared to incur the necessary expenses. In law it is theoption of the lessees of the Delhi Development Authority to decide whetherthey would like to have leasehold rights converted into freehold rights. Thecourt cannot give any such direction to the lessees that they should takesteps for converting the leasehold rights into freehold rights in the property. The appellant being the tenants only have no right to ask for conversion ofleasehold rights into freehold rights. ( 19 ) KEEPING in view the above observations, I hold that the impugnedorder of eviction passed by the two authorities below cannot be sustained asthey are not in compliance with the provisions of Section 14 (11) of the Act. The cases are remanded back to the Controller for deciding afresh thequestion of passing the eviction order in conformity with the provisions ofsection 14 (11) of the Act. The Controller shall before proceeding with thematter give fresh notice to the Delhi Development Authority through its Secretary for appearance and for making its stand clear and the Controller inany case shall have to determine the compensation which may be required tobe paid to the Delhi Development Authority regarding the past misuser of theproperty and shall decide as to what extent the compensation is payable bythe landlord for his having permitted the misuser. It is obvious that after thelandlord had served the notice on the tenants requiring them to stop themisuser the compensation for misuser occurring after the service of suchnotices would be the whole liability of the tenant. The parties are directed toappear before the Additional Rent Controller for further proceedings on 19/04/1993. The parties are left to bear their own costs throughout.