Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Sometime in 1975, the landlord sought the eviction of the tenant on several grounds and for various reasons. But the dialects of the situation have reduced the objections of the landlord to two main objections. Firstly, that the tenant has raised unauthorised construction on the second floor of the suit premises. Secondly, the tenant has misused the first floor of the suit premises by utilizing the same for commercial purpose, instead of for residential purposes as required by the perpetual lease deed. According to the landlord, the tenant has violated the provisions of Clause (k) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Act :

29. I have, therefore, no difficulty in holding that the tenant used the first floor of the premises contrary to the perpetual lease deed dated 19th December, 1938.

30. Having come to the above conclusions, the only question that remains is the relief to be granted to the landlord.

31. Learned counsel for the tenant submitted that the Land & Development Office of the Government of India had demanded damages for the unauthorised construction on the second floor of the suit premises for the period from 15th January, 1975 to 14th July, 1980. This amount is lying deposited in Court. For misusing the first floor premises, damages were levied for the period 11th September, 1971 to 14th July, 1980 but these were not required to be paid in view of the findings of the Courts below.

32. During the pendency of these appeals, a learned Single Judge of this Court had directed the Land & Development Office to indicate the up-to-date arrears to be paid towards unauthorised construction and as misuser charges.

33. Consequent upon the direction of this Court, the Land & Development Office by a letter dated 26th April, 1999 indicated the further damage charges for unauthorised construction for the period 15th July, 1980 upto 14th July, 1999. According to the land & Development Office, the tenant has made further unauthorised construction on the second floor for which damages charges are also required to be paid. Misuser charges in respect of the first floor have been indicated for the period 15th July, 1980 upto 14th July, 1999.

34. The question whether there has been unauthorised construction on the second floor of the suit premises is a question of fact. Both the Courts below have found, as a fact, that there has been unauthorised construction on the second floor of the suit premises. I see no reason to interfere with this finding of fact.

35. For the period subsequent to 14th July, 1980, it has still to be determined if there is any unauthorised construction on the second floor of the suit premises. It will, therefore, be appropriate if this is determined by the learned Additional Rent Controller by taking a decision under Section 14(11) of the Act.