Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 293 (DEL)

RONEO VICKERS INDIA LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA

2000-03-10

MADAN B.LOKUR

body2000
Madan B. Lokar ( 1 ) THE petitioner (successor of M/s. Vickers India Pvt. Ltd. which was amalgamated with M/s. Roneo Vickers India Ltd.) preferred a petitionunder Article 227 of the Constitution directed against the order dated 17/08/1996 passed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as thetribunal ). ( 2 ) THE narration of the facts of the case is quite cumbersome but the questioninvolved is extremely narrow and is really based on an appreciation of the facts ofthe case. ( 3 ) ON or about 20/08/1980, respondent No. 2 filed an eviction petitionagainst the petitioner in respect of the suit premises being No. 136, Block No. 171,sunder Nagar, New Delhi -110 003. According to respondent No. 2 the petitionerwas liable to be evicted in view of the provisions of Clause (c) and Clause (k) of theproviso to Section 14 (1) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to asthe Act ). ( 4 ) BY an order dated 27/02/1987, the learned Additional Rentcontroller dismissed the eviction petition with respect to the ground under Clause (c) of the proviso but upheld the contention of respondent No. 2 in respect of Clause (k) of the proviso to Section 14 (1) of the Act. Consequently, it was held that thepetitioner was misusing the suit premises in a manner contrary to the lease deedexecuted between respondent No. 2 and the principal lessor, that is, respondent No. 1. ( 5 ) FEELING aggrieved with the order dated 27/02/1987, the petitionerfiled an appeal before the learned Tribunal being RCA No. 506/87. This appeal wasdismissed in limine on 21/05/1987. This order has since attained finality. ( 6 ) THEREAFTER, as required by the provisions of Section 14 (11) of the Act noticewas issued by the learned Additional Rent Controller to respondent No. 1 toascertain the misuser charges that were required to be paid and also to determinewhether respondent No. 1 was prepared to condone the misuse of the suit premisesor not. 339 ( 7 ) CLAUSE (k) of the proviso to Section 14 (1) of the Act and Section 14 (11) of theact read as follows : "14. 339 ( 7 ) CLAUSE (k) of the proviso to Section 14 (1) of the Act and Section 14 (11) of theact read as follows : "14. Protection of tenant against eviction - (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law orcontract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premisesshall be made by any Court or Controller in favour of the landlord against atenant:provided that the Controller may, on an application made to him in theprescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of thepremises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely: (a) to (j) xxx xxx xxx (k) that the tenant has, notwithstanding previous notice, used or dealt with thepremises in a manner contrary to any condition imposed on the landlord bythe Government or the Delhi Development Authority or the Municipalcorporation of Delhi while giving him a lease of the land on which thepremises are situated;14 (11) No order for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be madeon the ground specified in Clause (k) of the proviso to Sub-section (1), if thetenant, within such time as may be specified in this behalf by the Controller,complies with the condition imposed on the landlord by any of the authoritiesreferred to in that clause or pays to that authority such amount by way ofcompensation as the Controller may direct. " ( 8 ) DURING the pendency of the proceedings before the learned Additional Rentcontroller under Section 14 (11) of the Act, respondent No. 1 filed the details (on 5/07/1988) of misuser charges for the period from 15/07/1980 upto 14/07/1988. It appears that misuser chages upto 14/07/1980 had already been paid bythe petitioner through respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 1. The extent of misusercharges claimed by respondent No. 1 for this period was Rs. 21,93,187. 00. Before thelearned Additional Rent Controller, the statement of one Shri A. C. Sehrawat,assistant Settlement Commissioner in the Government of India was recorded on 26/09/1988. According to this officer, there was no specific policy of thegovernment of India to stop the misuser permanently or not to condone the misusereven on a temporary basis from time-to-time subject to the payment of misusercharges. Before thelearned Additional Rent Controller, the statement of one Shri A. C. Sehrawat,assistant Settlement Commissioner in the Government of India was recorded on 26/09/1988. According to this officer, there was no specific policy of thegovernment of India to stop the misuser permanently or not to condone the misusereven on a temporary basis from time-to-time subject to the payment of misusercharges. ( 9 ) IN view of the statement of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner thelearned Additional Rent Controller was of opinion that no eviction order could bepassed against the petitioner and since respondent No. 1 was prepared to condonethe misuser of the suit premises, he directed the petitioner to pay to respondent No. 2 or to deposit in Court the misuser charges as claimed by respondent No. 1 in termsof the details filed on 5/07/1988. This amount was required to be paid within aperiod of one month from the date of the order, that is, 26/09/1988. Thepetitioner was also directed to pay or deposit in Court the misuser charges that maybe levied in future by respondent No. 1. ( 10 ) THE petitioner filed an appeal being RCA No. 565/88 directed against theorder dated 26/09/1988 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller. Respondent No. 2 filed her cross-objections in this appeal. By an order dated 22/02/1989, the learned Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by thepetitioner as well as the cross-objections filed by respondent No. 2. The learnedtribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioner was obliged to pay the misusercharges demanded by respondent No. 1. This order passed by the learned Tribunalhas also attained finality. ( 11 ) IT appears that respondent No. 2 had filed another eviction petition againstthe respondent under Clauses (c) and (k) of the proviso to Section 14 (1) of the Act. In that eviction petition, an order was passed on 21/01/1994 requiring thepetitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 3,94,159. 00 towards misuser charges. Thisamount appears to have been deposited by the petitioner on or about 16/03/1994. However, the amount as per the details filed before the learned Additionalrent Controller on 5/07/1988, that is, Rs. 21,93,187. 00 (minus Rs. 3,94,159. 00)remained unpaid despite the order dated 26/09/1988 passed by thelearned Additional Rent Controller and the order dated 22/02/1989 passedby the learned Tribunal. Thisamount appears to have been deposited by the petitioner on or about 16/03/1994. However, the amount as per the details filed before the learned Additionalrent Controller on 5/07/1988, that is, Rs. 21,93,187. 00 (minus Rs. 3,94,159. 00)remained unpaid despite the order dated 26/09/1988 passed by thelearned Additional Rent Controller and the order dated 22/02/1989 passedby the learned Tribunal. ( 12 ) ALSO sometime in 1994, the petitioner filed CWP No. 2877/94 in this Courtchallenging, inter aha, the jurisdiction of respondent No. 1 to "periodically increasethe ground rent chargeable on the continuance of the change - alteration in thenature of the land used i. e. from residential to commercial. . . . . " This writ petition ispending before a Division Bench of this Court. By an order dated 14/05/1998,the writ petition was admitted and liberty was granted to respondent No. 2 "toapproach the learned Single Judge before whom the eviction case is pending fordecision of the case without waiting the decision in this writ petition. " ( 13 ) ON 26/08/1997, learned Counsel for the petitioner made a statementin this case that without prejudice to his rights in CWP No. 2877/94 as well as hisrights in this petition, his client is prepared to deposit an amount of Rs. 21,93,187. 00 minus Rs. 3,94,159. 00 already deposited on 16/03/1994. On 4/11/1997 a statement was made by learned Counsel for the petitioner thatthe amount has since been deposited. Consequently, it appears that misuser chargeshave been paid by the petitioner upto 14/07/1988. ( 14 ) IT may be mentioned, en passant, that there have been subsequent demandsof misuser charges made by respondent No. 1, as reflected in CM No. 1694/98 andcm No. 1125/99, but I am not concerned with them for the decision of this case. These applications are accordingly dismissed. ( 15 ) IN the meanwhile, on 14/02/1991, respondent No. 2 filed anexecution petition seeking the eviction of the petitioner for not depositing themisuser charges in terms of the order dated 26/09/1988 passed by thelearned Additional Rent Controller or even the order dated 22/02/1989passed by the learned Tribunal. While disposing of the execution petition, thelearned Additional Rent Controller held in his order dated 4/03/1995 thatstrictly speaking an execution petition was not the appropriate remedy because nofinal eviction order has been passed against the petitioner. He, therefore, treated thepetitioner as an application for continuing with the eviction proceedings whichwere initiated on 20/08/1980. While disposing of the execution petition, thelearned Additional Rent Controller held in his order dated 4/03/1995 thatstrictly speaking an execution petition was not the appropriate remedy because nofinal eviction order has been passed against the petitioner. He, therefore, treated thepetitioner as an application for continuing with the eviction proceedings whichwere initiated on 20/08/1980. I am of the view that the learned Additionalrent Controller rightly did not let technicalities come in the way of a decision on thesubstance of the case. ( 16 ) ON merits, the learned Additional Rent Controller came to the conclusionthat the petitioner had failed to deposit the misuser charges as required by his orderdated 26/09/1988. He concluded that even after the dismissal of theappeal filed by the petitioner and the cross objections filed by respondent No. 2 on 22/02/1989 the petitioner had failed to deposit the misuser charges. Consequently, the learned Additional Rent Controller came to the conclusion thatthe petitioner had forfeited his right to the protection of Section 14 (11) of the Act. Accordingly, the learned Additional Rent Controller passed an eviction orderagainst the petitioner under Clause (k) of the proviso to Section 14 (1) of the Act. ( 17 ) FEELING aggrieved, the petitioner filed RCA No. 233/95. The appeal of thepetitioner was considered by the learned Tribunal and by its order dated 1 7/08/1996, the learned Tribunal confirmed the finding of fact that the misusercharges had not been paid or deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the ordersdated 26/09/1988 and 22/02/1989. Accordingly, the learnedtribunal confirmed the order of the learned Additional Rent Controller anddismissed the petitioner s appeal with costs of Rs. 2,500. 00. ( 18 ) WHEN this petition was listed before me on 7/03/2000, lawyers wereabstaining from attending to their cases in the Courts. No one was present on behalfof the petitioner to address arguments and the Counsel who appeared, apparentlyat the instance of the Bar Association was not able to render proper assistance. Noone appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 1 also. Respondent No. 2 wasrepresented by her son-in-law who stated that she was in her mid-eighties and infrail health. He stated that in view of the physical condition of respondent No. 2 hewanted to go on with the case. Noone appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 1 also. Respondent No. 2 wasrepresented by her son-in-law who stated that she was in her mid-eighties and infrail health. He stated that in view of the physical condition of respondent No. 2 hewanted to go on with the case. Under these circumstances, I was not inclined toadjourn the matter and heard the submissions made on behalf of respondent No. 2 and also perused the paper book of the case. ( 19 ) THERE is a clear and concurrent finding of fact by both the Courts below thatmisuser charges for the period from 15/07/1980 to 1 4/07/1988 were requiredto be paid by the petitioner and these charges were not deposited by the petitionerwithin the period postulated by the order dated 26/09/1988 and 2 2/02/1989. The only deposit made by the petitioner was of an amount of Rs. 3,94,159. 00 out of a total demand of Rs. 21,93,184. 00. This deposit does not evenrepresent a substantial amount of the misuser charges. Moreover, even this amountwas deposited by the petitioner after a lapse of almost 5 years. Clearly, the petitionerhas not complied with the orders passed by the learned Additional Rent Controllerand by the learned Tribunal. ( 20 ) THE facts of the case clearly point to a wanton disregard of the orders of thecourts below by the petitioner. The delay in making the payment of misusercharges is inexcusable but, quite apart from this, the petitioner has not even soughtcondonation of delay in making the deposit. The consequence of the default (actually negligence) of the petitioner is, to my mind, inescapable - the petitionermade itself liable for eviction under Clause (k) of the proviso to Section 14 (1) of theact. The petitioner was entitled to the benefit of Section 14 (11) of the Act subject toits complying with the conditions imposed on respondent No. 2 by respondent No. 1 or paying to respondent No. 1 the amounts due within the time frame laid downby the learned Additional Rent Controller and the learned Tribunal. The petitionerhas failed to show any justification for protection under Section 14 (11) of the Act. ( 21 ) CONSEQUENTLY, I see no reason to interfere with the orders passed by thecourts below and affirm their decisions to order the eviction of the petitioner. ( 22 ) THE petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000. The petitionerhas failed to show any justification for protection under Section 14 (11) of the Act. ( 21 ) CONSEQUENTLY, I see no reason to interfere with the orders passed by thecourts below and affirm their decisions to order the eviction of the petitioner. ( 22 ) THE petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000. 00 which will be in additionto the costs already imposed by the learned Tribunal.