The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the eviction of a tenant who altered the use of rented premises from an electrical goods shop to a storage facility for inflammable materials like paints and chemicals.
Justice Girish Kathpalia, exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, upheld the eviction order passed by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal against the petitioner-tenant. The Court found no infirmity in the concurrent findings of the lower courts that the tenant had misused the premises by stocking dangerous goods without the landlord’s consent, thereby causing a public nuisance. The Court directed the execution court to ensure “expeditious execution of the eviction order,” noting that proceedings had been stayed for over a decade.
Background of the Case
The dispute pertains to a shop located in property no. WZ-297C, Village Madipur, New Delhi. The respondent-landlord, Ram Narain, filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(c) of the Delhi Rent Control Act against the petitioner-tenant, Munna @ Manoj Kumar.
The landlord alleged that the premises were originally let out for the business of selling electrical goods. However, the tenant subsequently changed the user of the premises by stocking inflammable materials such as paints, thinners, turpentine, and chemicals. The landlord contended that this unauthorized change endangered the safety and health of other tenants in the building and constituted a public nuisance, as the tenant possessed no license from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) for such storage.
Despite a legal notice served on April 11, 2007, requiring the tenant to stop the misuse, the activity continued. The Additional Rent Controller allowed the eviction petition on December 20, 2012. The tenant’s subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal on January 12, 2015, leading to the present petition before the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Submissions: Counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order suffered from perversity. The key contentions were:
- There was no evidence on record to prove that the goods stored were inflammable or dangerous.
- A notice dated August 16, 1999, which mentioned that the premises were leased for “hardware, sanitary work and paints,” was concealed by the landlord. The petitioner argued this proved there was no change of user.
- No municipal license is required for storing paints unless the quantity exceeds a prescribed limit.
- Regarding photographs showing drums outside the shop, there was no evidence establishing their contents.
- The statutory notice under Section 14(5) of the Act was not validly served as it was received by the petitioner’s brother, not the petitioner personally.
Respondent’s Submissions: Counsel for the respondent supported the lower courts’ decisions, arguing:
- The High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited and does not allow for reappreciation of evidence.
- The notice dated August 16, 1999, was a quit notice regarding non-payment of rent and was irrelevant to the ground of misuse under Section 14(1)(c).
- The mandatory notice under Section 14(5) requiring the tenant to stop misuse was duly served and proved during the trial.
Court’s Analysis
Scope of Jurisdiction Justice Kathpalia emphasized the limited scope of interference under Article 227, observing that the High Court can only interfere if the impugned order is “grossly illegal or perverse.” The Court stated, “The High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India shall not reappreciate the evidence.”
On Misuse of Premises
The Court examined the requirements of Section 14(1)(c) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, which provides for eviction if a tenant uses premises for a purpose other than that for which they were let without the landlord’s consent. This is subject to Section 14(5), which requires a notice to stop misuse, and the condition that the misuse must be of a nature that is a public nuisance, causes damage to the premises, or is detrimental to the landlord’s interest.
The Court relied significantly on a previous civil suit between the parties (Registration no. 1469/11/2007). In that suit, a Civil Court had passed a judgment and decree on October 13, 2013, restraining the tenant from storing hazardous articles. The High Court noted:
“The said judgment and decree of the civil court having not been challenged, has attained finality. From the said judgment itself, it is clearly established that the petitioner/tenant without obtaining consent of the respondent/landlord or license from the concerned authority indulged in using the tenanted premises for purpose other than for which the same were let out.”
On Evidence of Nuisance
The Court referred to unchallenged photographs on the trial court record, stating they clearly depicted that “the petitioner/tenant has been storing drums and sanitary hardware material, causing nuisance for the remaining shopkeepers of the larger premises.” The Court also noted that a challan had been issued to the petitioner for storing goods without a municipal license.
On Service of Notice
Addressing the petitioner’s argument regarding the service of the notice under Section 14(5), the Court rejected the claim that service on the petitioner’s brother was invalid. The Court observed:
“The said notice was admittedly received at the subject premises by brother of the petitioner/tenant… It is nobody’s case that the petitioner/tenant was not on cordial terms with his brother or for any other reason, the said notice was not seen by him.”
Conclusion and Decision
The High Court concluded that there was no infirmity or perversity in the orders of the Rent Controller or the Rent Control Tribunal. The Court held that the petitioner failed to show any consent from the landlord for the change of user from an electrical goods shop to a sanitary and paints shop.
Dismissing the petition as “frivolous” and “devoid of merit,” Justice Kathpalia ordered:
“Since the execution proceedings remained stayed vide order dated 28.01.2015 of the predecessor bench for more than a decade, the learned execution court is requested to ensure expeditious execution of the eviction order.”
Case Details
- Case Title: Munna @ Manoj Kumar vs. Ram Narain
- Case Number: CM(M) 76/2015
- Coram: Justice Girish Kathpalia
