P. K. Bahri ( 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. 1 SA/36, Western Extension Area, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, as tenants. under the respondent. The eviction petitions were brought against thesetenants by the landlord on the ground of eviction covered by Sec. 14 (l) (k)of the Delhi Rent Control Act ( the Act ). ( 3 ). The two Courts below have given findings that premises havebeen let out for commercial purposes. It is not in dispute that according tothe terms of the lease under which the property is held by the respondent,the property could be used only for residential purposes. The ground ofeviction covered by Clause (k) was upheld by both the Courts and there isno challenge to the said findings of the two Courts below. Clause (k) readsas follows: "that the tenant has, notwithstanding previous notice, used ordealt with the premises in a manner contrary to any conditionimposed on the landlord by the Govt. or the Delhi Developmentauthority or the Municipal Corporation of Delhi while giving hima lease of the 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 Sec. 14 (11) of the Act which reads : "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. Beforecoming into force of the DRC Act and the Delhi Dev. Act, leases were. " ( 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. Beforecoming into force of the DRC Act and the Delhi Dev. Act, leases were. being granted by the Land and Development Office and the authorities were-perhaps more liberal in the matter of violation of the terms of the lease andthe residential premises were being converted into commercial premises asthe need of the population in Delhi grew. The Rent Control Act wasenforced in Delhi for the first time in 1952 and thereafter in 1958. In orderto check the haphazard growth of Delhi, the Delhi Dev. Act was broughtinto force in 1962 which contemplated preparation of the Master Planwhich would identify different parts of Delhi and prescribe user of thoseparts of Delhi for particular purposes. The Delhi Dev. Act also contemplated framing of Zonal Dev. Plans which were to indicate particularly theuser of buildings and land in a particular Zone. The Legislature in itswisdom provided for Sec. 14 and Sec. 29 in the said Act to see that anyviolation of the Master Plan or Zonal Dev. Plan with regard to the user ofthe particular land or building should not go unpunished. It was made apenal offence to use any land or building for a purpose other than mentionedin the Master Plan or Zonal Dev. Plan. The Legislature could have easilyomitted certain provisions of Section 14 (11) so that if any tenant is foundusing a particular premises for a purpose in violation of the terms of thelease granted by the Govt. authorities then he should have either been madeto face the eviction if he was not to stop user of such premises in conformitywith the terms of the lease. But the Legislature did not. Weprovisions with regard to the payment of compensation as the Controllermay direct which led the Courts to interpret this provision. When theauthority was to agree to accept compensation, the Controller was requiredto determine the said amount of compensation and could also proportionately distribute the liability between the landlord and the tenantwhere the landlord initially had permitted the misuser. ( 6 ). The question which remained subject-matter of. When theauthority was to agree to accept compensation, the Controller was requiredto determine the said amount of compensation and could also proportionately distribute the liability between the landlord and the tenantwhere the landlord initially had permitted 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 tenants should be required to stopmisuser of the building or not by certain date. If the Legislature in itswisdom had modified this particular provision of Sec. 14 (11) when it framedthe Delhi Dev. Actitl962, the problem would not have remained if thewords "pays to that authority such amount by way of compensation as thecontroller may direct" had been omitted from Sec. 14 (11 ). ( 7 ). The object of having an organized development of Delhi, whichis now to be again given a shape by having another Master Plan, could havebeen easily achieved to some extent if this provision had been modified assuggested above, but unfortunately the Legislature although had issuedordinance making more drastic the provisions for dealing with the misuserof buildings and for illegal construction of the buildings yet has not thought itfit to modify this particular provision of Sec. 14 (11 ). If this provision hadbeen omitted then the tenant, who take the premises on rent from thelandlord may be for commercial purposes, who have been required to stopthe misuser of face the eviction and there could not have been left anyoption to the Controller or to the authorities for passing any order for paying of any compensation. ( 8 ). Coming to the facts of the present cases, the D. D. A. is theparamount lessor and is to decide as whether it is to permit misuser of thepremises, if so, for how long period and also show as to whether it would beinterested in having any compensation. The A. R. C. , in the present cases,had passed an order requiring that the tenant would stop the misuser if sometarget date is fixed by the D. D. A. by which the misuser of the propertiesare to be stopped and he directed that compensation would be determinedand would be paid by the landlord and the tenant in equal proportion. The A. R. C. , in the present cases,had passed an order requiring that the tenant would stop the misuser if sometarget date is fixed by the D. D. A. by which the misuser of the propertiesare to be stopped and he directed that compensation would be determinedand would be paid by the landlord and the tenant in equal proportion. Thetribunal on the other hand in appeals bad required the tenants to stop themisuser and had left the question of payment of compensation to bedetermined by the Civil Courts. ( 9 ). I am afraid that the Tribunal has not appreciated the provisionsof Section 14 (11) in proper perspective. The D. D. A. in the present cases,has filed affidavit, on notice being given to the D. D. A. which is at page 214to SAO No. 92/86. This affidavit has been filed by the then Secretary ofthe D. D. A. in which it has been mentioned that as per the latest policybeing followed by the D. D. A. the prosecution for misuser in W. E. A. hasbeen suspended for the time being as per the orders of the former Lt. Governor as there is likelihood of permission being granted for commerciali-zation of the area after charging certain dues in accordance with theprovisions of Master Plan/zonal Dev. Plan. ( 10 ). Keeping inview this stand of the D. D. A. the question whicharises for decision is as to what order should be made in these cases whichshould meet with the requirement of Sec. 14 (11 ). ( 11 ). The provisions of Sec. 14 (11) of the DRC. Act came up forconsideration in Faqir Chand v. Ram Rattan, AIR 1973 SC 92l==l973. Rajlr 153. The said case also pertained to a property located in Karol Bagh. The High Court had taken the view that the misuser was in violation ofzonal Dev. Plan and the same being a penal offence u/secs. 14 and29 of thedelhi Dev. Act. , the Controller has no option but to direct stoppage of themisuser by the tenant and in default to evict the tenant. The Supreme Courtexamined the facts of the said case and found that no Zonal Dev. Plan and the same being a penal offence u/secs. 14 and29 of thedelhi Dev. Act. , the Controller has no option but to direct stoppage of themisuser by the tenant and in default to evict the tenant. The Supreme Courtexamined the facts of the said case and found that no Zonal Dev. Plan hadbeen prepared and had also found that there was only violation of the termof the lease granted by the Improvement Trust and the lessor had the optionof condoning the misuser and the matter was remanded to the Controller todecide the question aftergiving notice to the D. D. A. which was the successor-in-interest of the Improvement Trust. The Supreme Court also foundthat there has not come into existence any Zonal Dev. Plan. It also foundthat under proviso to Sec. 14 of the Delhi Dev. Act, if there is any misuserin existence prior to coming into force of the Master Plan/zonal Dev. Planthen the said misuser could be continued subject to such terms and conditionsas may be prescribed by Regulations by the D. D. A. It is, hence, evidentthat if a Zonal Dev. Plan has come into existence and misuser takes placeafter coming into existence of Zonal Dev. Plan then in such a case thed. D. A. would perhaps have no power to allow. continuance of misuser tilleither the Zonal Dev. Plan is modified or ne,v Master Plan comes intoexistence providing for any different user of-that particular building. ( 12 ). In the present case, it is not the case of the respondent that thismisuser was in violation of the Zonal Dev. Plan and had come into existenceafter the enforcement of any Zonal Dev. Plan. ( 13 ). I may refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court given in Punjabnational Bank v. Arjun Dev, (1986) 4 SCC 660=1986 Raj. LR. 14 where thesupreme Court directed the authorities to fix quantum of penalty after hearing Counsel for the parties and the D. D. A. The judgment has not dealt withthe question as to whether any direction should be given for stopping themisuser. ( 14 ). In Civil Appeal No. 2210/87, Narain DOS v. Manohar Lal,d/8-9-87, similar question again came up for consideration before thesupreme Court. The Supreme Court found that the Lt. ( 14 ). In Civil Appeal No. 2210/87, Narain DOS v. Manohar Lal,d/8-9-87, similar question again came up for consideration before thesupreme Court. The Supreme Court found that the Lt. Governor badstayed the action with regard to misuser and thus, the Supreme Courtremanded the case back to the authorities for requiring the Controller todetermine the quantum of compensation payable to the D. D. A. for thepurpose of misuser of the property and the tenant will bear the said penaltyas may be determined. It was also, made clear that if the D. D. A. was togive fresh notice for cancellation of. lease on the ground of breach of theterms of the lease, the landlord was free to take any action in accordancewith law in future. ( 15 ). In Tilak Raj v. Surinder Kaur, 1973 Rajdhani Law Reporter (Note)62, the High Court while dealing with Sub-section (II) required thatthe Controller should issue notice to the D. D. A. to ascertain if it was prepared to accept compensation for the misuser. ( 16 ). So, it appears that a direction regarding stoppage of misuser canbe given by the Controller in a case where the D. D. A. takes a firm standthat such misuser must stop by a particular date. If the D. D. A. is ditheringin the matter and is considering and re-considering the question as towhether misuser should be stopped in residential buildings, there is no optionfor the Court but to require the D. D. A. to determine at least the amount ofcompensation for the past misuser and get it realised from the tenant inorder to save him from being evicted under the aforesaid ground. ( 17 ). It is quite clear that if the D. D. A. at any point of time takes apolicy decision that in future by some particular date the D. D. A. is toenforce strictly the conformity of the premises in accordance with the Masterplan and according to the terms of the lease and not to permit any sort ofmisuser, then the D. D. A. has to declare that policy publicly and give a particular furture date by which the citizens could be made aware about its policythat from that date onward there would be granted no permission for misuserof any residential building. If the owners are misusing the premises in violation of the terms of the lease, D. D. A. can easily enforce the compliancewith the terms of the lease by cancelling the lease and taking over the property. Where the tenant is misusing the property, the landlord has to. takesteps to get the tenant to conform with the provisions of the lease-deed andthe authorities under the Rent Control Act could also require the tenant tostop the misuser. If the Legislature omits the clause regarding the payment ofcompensation then it would become very easy for the Rent Control Authorities to pass eviction orders if the tenants do not stop the misuser. But it isfor the Legislature to make up its mind and make necessary amendments inthe Rent Control Act. ( 18 ). Counsel for the appellants have also prayed by moving certainapplications that the landlord may be required to move the D. D. A. for getting the freehold rights in the property in question as the same are now beingpermitted by the D. DA. and the appellants are prepared to incur the necessary expenses. In law it is the option of the lessees of the D. D. A. to decidewhether they would like to have leasehold rights converted into freeholdrights. The Court cannot give any such direction to the lessees that theyshould take steps for converting the leasehold rights into freehold rights inthe property. The appellants being the tenants only have no right to ask forconversion of leasehold 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 Sec. 14 (11) of the Act. The cases areremanded back to the Controller for deciding afresh the question of passingof the eviction order in conformity with Sec. 14 (11) of the Act. The Controller shall before proceeding with the matter give fresh notice to thed. D. A. through its Secretary for appearance and for making its stand clearand the Controller in any case shall have to determine the compensationwhich may be required to be paid to the D. D. A. regarding the past misuserof the property and shall decide as to what extent the compensation is payable by the landlord for his having permitting the misuser. It is obviousthat after the landlord had served the notice on the tenants requiring them tostop the misuser the compensation for misuser occurring after the service ofsuch notices would be the whole liability of the tenant.