1.1. LeaveLeave granted.granted.
2.ThisThis appealappeal isis directeddirected againstagainst thethe judgmentjudgment andand orderorder dateddated 1st1st ofof November,November, 20062006 passedpassed inin CivilCivil RevisionRevision CaseCase No.No. 47354735 ofof 20012001 byby thethe HighHigh CourtCourt ofof PunjabPunjab andand HaryanaHaryana atat ChandigarhChandigarh whereinwherein thethe HighHigh CourtCourt hadhad allowedallowed thethe revisionrevision petitionpetition andand setset asideaside thethe judgmentjudgment passedpassed byby thethe AppellateAppellate Authority,Authority, ChandigarhChandigarh whichwhich hadhad setset asideaside thethe judgmentjudgment andand orderorder ofof thethe RentRent Controller,Controller, ChandigarhChandigarh rejectingrejecting thethe applicationapplication forfor evictioneviction filedfiled byby thethe landlord/appellantlandlord/appellant (hereinafter(hereinafter referredreferred toto asas thethe ‘appellant’)‘appellant’) 3.3. TheThe appellant,appellant, whowho hadhad purchasedpurchased thethe HouseHouse No.No. 189,189, SectorSector 11-A,11-A, ChandigarhChandigarh (which(which isis inin aa residentialresidential area)area) inin anan auctionauction inin 1990,1990, raisedraised aa constructionconstruction onon thatthat plotplot whichwhich isis 500500 Sq.Sq. Yds.Yds. (hereinafter(hereinafter referredreferred toto asas “the“the demiseddemised premises”).premises”). AsAs thethe appellantappellant hashas settledsettled inin U.K.,U.K., hishis fatherfather ShriShri MangeMange Ram,Ram, whowho isis aa permanentpermanent residentresident ofof India,India, hadhad inductedinducted thethe respondentrespondent asas aa tenanttenant inin aa partpart ofof thethe residentialresidential premisespremises forfor residentialresidential useuse inin thethe monthmonth ofof April,April, 1994.1994. TheThe tenant/respondenttenant/respondent (hereinafter(hereinafter referredreferred toto asas thethe ‘respondent’),‘respondent’), accordingaccording toto thethe appellant,appellant, withoutwithout thethe consentconsent andand permissionpermission ofof thethe appellant,appellant, startedstarted commercialcommercial activitiesactivities inin thethe demiseddemised premisespremises fromfrom DecemberDecember 1994.1994. TheThe appellantappellant filedfiled anan applicationapplication underunder SectionSection 1313 ofof thethe EastEast PunjabPunjab UrbanUrban RentRent RestrictionRestriction Act,Act, 19491949 (hereinafter(hereinafter referredreferred toto asas “the“the Act”),Act”), forfor evictioneviction ofof thethe respondentrespondent fromfrom thethe demiseddemised premisespremises onon thethe groundground thatthat althoughalthough thethe demiseddemised premisespremises waswas letlet outout forfor residentialresidential purposes,purposes, thethe respondentrespondent had,had, withoutwithout thethe consentconsent andand permissionpermission ofof thethe appellant,appellant, startedstarted usingusing itit forfor commercialcommercial use.use. TheThe evictioneviction applicationapplication waswas dismisseddismissed byby thethe RentRent Controller,Controller, Chandigarh,Chandigarh, againstagainst whichwhich anan appealappeal waswas takentaken beforebefore thethe AppellateAppellate Authority,Authority, Chandigarh,Chandigarh, whichwhich waswas allowedallowed byby itsits orderorder dateddated 14th14th ofof August,August, 2001.2001. AgainstAgainst thisthis orderorder ofof thethe AppellateAppellate Authority,Authority, thethe respondentrespondent filedfiled aa revisionrevision petitionpetition beforebefore thethe HighHigh CourtCourt andand byby thethe impugnedimpugned JudgmentJudgment ofof thethe HighHigh Court,Court, thethe evictioneviction petitionpetition ofof thethe appellantappellant waswas dismisseddismissed andand thethe orderorder ofof thethe RentRent Controller,Controller, ChandigarhChandigarh waswas restored.restored. 4.4. FeelingFeeling aggrieved,aggrieved, thethe appellantappellant hashas filedfiled thisthis SpecialSpecial LeaveLeave Petition,Petition, whichwhich onon grantgrant ofof leave,leave, waswas heardheard inin presencepresence ofof thethe learnedlearned counselcounsel forfor thethe parties.parties.
5.5. WeWe havehave heardheard thethe learnedlearned counselcounsel appearingappearing forfor thethe partiesparties andand examinedexamined thethe impugnedimpugned judgmentjudgment asas wellwell asas thethe judgmentjudgment ofof thethe AppellateAppellate AuthorityAuthority andand thethe RentRent Controller,Controller, ChandigarhChandigarh andand otherother materialsmaterials onon record.record.
6.6. TheThe questionsquestions thatthat needneed toto bebe decideddecided inin thethe presentpresent appealappeal areare whetherwhether ::
(i)(i) thethe demiseddemised premisespremises whichwhich isis situatedsituated inin aa
residentialresidential areaarea andand inin aa residentialresidential buildingbuilding cancan bebe usedused forfor commercialcommercial purposespurposes eveneven byby consentconsent ofof thethe appellantappellant inin viewview ofof SectionSection 1111 ofof thethe ActAct andand thethe provisionsprovisions ofof thethe DevelopmentDevelopment andand RegulationRegulation Act;Act; andand (ii)(ii) ifif thethe residentialresidential premisespremises isis letlet outout forfor commercialcommercial purposes,purposes, byby aa mutualmutual agreementagreement betweenbetween thethe landlordlandlord andand thethe tenant,tenant, cancan thethe landlordlandlord stillstill seekseek evictioneviction ofof thethe tenanttenant onon thethe groundground thatthat usingusing ofof suchsuch residentialresidential premisespremises forfor commercialcommercial purposespurposes entailsentails thethe tenanttenant toto bebe evictedevicted fromfrom thethe demiseddemised premises?premises?
7.Before we deal with question No.1 as posed herein earlier, let us first decide the question No.2.
8.In our view, this question must be decided in favour of the appellant. In Vinod Kumar Arora vs. Surjit Kaur [1987 (3) SCC 711], this Court has dealt with this question. At page 719, this court observed that - “ Even if the landlord and tenant had converted a residential building into a non residential one by mutual consent, it would still be violative of Section 11 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act and, therefore, the landlord cannot be barred from seeking recovery of possession of the leased building for his residential needs. We are therefore, of the view that the findings of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority about the appellant having taken the hall on lease only for running a clinic and that he had not changed the user of the premises have been rendered without reference to the pleadings and without examining the legality of the appellant’s contentions in the light of Section 11 of the Act. We do not, therefore, think the High Court has committed any error in law in ignoring the findings rendered by the statutory authorities about the purpose for which the hall had been taken on lease.” (Emphasis supplied). 9.9. AgainAgain inin KamalKamal AroraArora vs.vs. AmarAmar SinghSingh && Ors.Ors. [1986[1986 Suppl.Suppl. SCCSCC 481]481] thisthis CourtCourt inin paragraphparagraph 33 observedobserved asas followsfollows :: “The High Court after examining the provisions of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 read with Section 11 of the Rent Act held that statute prohibits conversion of residential building into non-residential by act inter vivos. It was said that the landlord and the tenant by their mutual consent cannot convert a residential building into a nonresidential building because that would be violative of the provision of Section 11. And it is admitted that building is situated in a sector falling within the residential zone.” (Emphasis supplied)
10.In view of the above two decisions of this Court and after considering the provisions of Section 11 of the Act, it must be held that the landlord cannot permit a tenant to use the premises which is situated in a residential area for commercial purposes as it would be violative of Section 11 of the Act which is mandatory in nature. Accordingly, we are of the view that question No. 2 must be answered in favour of the appellant.
11.Let us now come back to question No.1 formulated earlier.
12.Before we deal with this question, we may refer to the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 13(2)(ii)(b) and Section 11 of the Act are such sections which would be required to be considered first to decide this appeal. Section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the Act runs as under :- 13(2)13(2) AA landlordlandlord whowho seeksseeks toto evictevict hishis tenanttenant shallshall applyapply toto thethe ControllerController forfor aa directiondirection inin thatthat behalf.behalf. IfIf thethe Controller,Controller, afterafter givinggiving thethe tenanttenant aa reasonablereasonable opportunityopportunity ofof showingshowing causecause againstagainst thethe applicant,applicant, isis satisfied-satisfied- (ii)(ii) thatthat thethe tenanttenant hashas afterafter thethe commencementcommencement ofof thisthis ActAct withoutwithout thethe writtenwritten consentconsent ofof thethe landlord-landlord- (b)(b) usedused thethe buildingbuilding oror rentedrented landland forfor aa purposepurpose otherother thanthan thatthat forfor whichwhich itit hashas beenbeen leased,leased, TheThe ControllerController maymay makemake anan orderorder directingdirecting thethe tenanttenant toto putput thethe landlordlandlord inin possessionpossession ofof thethe buildingbuilding oror rentedrented landland andand ifif thethe ControllerController isis notnot soso satisfiedsatisfied hehe shallshall makemake anan orderorder rejectingrejecting thethe application:application: ProvidedProvided thatthat thethe ControllerController maymay givegive thethe tenanttenant aa reasonablereasonable timetime forfor puttingputting thethe landlordlandlord inin possessionpossession ofof thethe buildingbuilding oror rentedrented landland andand maymay extendextend suchsuch timetime soso asas notnot toto exceedexceed threethree monthsmonths inin thethe aggregate.aggregate. SectionSection 1111 ofof thethe ActAct runsruns asas underunder :-:- “Conversation“Conversation ofof aa residentialresidential buildingbuilding intointo aa non-residentialnon-residential buildingbuilding –– NoNo personperson shallshall convertconvert aa residentialresidential buildingbuilding intointo aa non-nonresidentialresidential buildingbuilding exceptexcept withwith thethe permissionpermission inin writingwriting ofof thethe Controller.”Controller.” 13.13. FromFrom aa barebare readingreading ofof thethe provisionprovision underunder SectionSection 13(2)(ii)(b)13(2)(ii)(b) ofof thethe Act,Act, itit wouldwould bebe evidentevident thatthat ifif aa tenantedtenanted premisespremises isis letlet outout forfor residentialresidential purposes,purposes, butbut isis beingbeing usedused otherother thanthan thatthat forfor whichwhich itit hashas beenbeen leasedleased out,out, i.e.,i.e., forfor commercialcommercial purposes,purposes, thethe tenanttenant isis liableliable forfor evictioneviction fromfrom thethe tenantedtenanted premises.premises. InIn thethe applicationapplication forfor evictioneviction thethe appellantappellant pleadedpleaded thatthat thethe demiseddemised premisespremises waswas letlet outout toto thethe respondentrespondent forfor aa periodperiod ofof 1111 monthsmonths inin thethe monthmonth ofof April,April, 19941994 atat aa monthlymonthly rentalrental ofof Rs.1000/-Rs.1000/- forfor residentialresidential use.use. Therefore,Therefore, thethe appellantappellant pleadedpleaded thatthat sincesince thethe purposepurpose forfor whichwhich thethe demiseddemised premisespremises waswas letlet outout waswas violatedviolated asas itit waswas broughtbrought intointo commercialcommercial use,use, thethe respondentrespondent waswas liableliable forfor evictioneviction underunder SectionSection 13(2)(ii)(b)13(2)(ii)(b) ofof thethe ActAct fromfrom thethe demiseddemised premises.premises.
14.14. TheThe evictioneviction applicationapplication waswas hotlyhotly contestedcontested byby thethe respondentrespondent byby filingfiling aa writtenwritten objectionobjection inin whichwhich thethe respondentrespondent disputeddisputed thethe veryvery purposepurpose ofof tenancytenancy forfor whichwhich thethe tenancytenancy waswas taken.taken. TheThe respondent,respondent, interinter alia,alia, mademade outout aa casecase inin hishis defencedefence thatthat thethe evictioneviction applicationapplication filedfiled byby thethe appellantappellant underunder SectionSection 13(2)(ii)(b)13(2)(ii)(b) ofof thethe ActAct waswas notnot maintainablemaintainable asas thethe demiseddemised premisespremises waswas letlet outout forfor commercialcommercial purposespurposes fromfrom thethe veryvery inceptioninception ofof thethe tenancytenancy and,and, accordingly,accordingly, thethe useuse ofof thethe demiseddemised premisespremises forfor commercialcommercial purposespurposes fromfrom thethe veryvery inceptioninception ofof thethe tenancytenancy eveneven inin aa residentialresidential buildingbuilding andand alsoalso inin aa residentialresidential areaarea cancan notnot givegive anyany rightright toto thethe landlordlandlord toto getget anan orderorder ofof evictioneviction underunder SectionSection 13(2)(ii)(b)13(2)(ii)(b) ofof thethe ActAct andand inin viewview ofof thethe above,above, thethe respondentrespondent contendedcontended thatthat thethe evictioneviction applicationapplication filedfiled byby thethe appellantappellant mustmust bebe rejected.rejected.
15.15. InIn supportsupport ofof theirtheir respectiverespective casecase beforebefore thethe RentRent Controller,Controller, partiesparties adducedadduced evidenceevidence andand wentwent intointo trial.trial. AsAs notednoted hereinherein earlier,earlier, thethe RentRent Controller,Controller, Chandigarh,Chandigarh, byby itsits judgmentjudgment andand orderorder rejectedrejected thethe evictioneviction applicationapplication onon thethe groundground thatthat sincesince thethe appellantappellant hadhad notnot appearedappeared inin thethe witnesswitness boxbox toto supportsupport thethe contentscontents ofof thethe evictioneviction applicationapplication anan adverseadverse inferenceinference mustmust bebe drawndrawn againstagainst himhim forfor non-non- productionproduction ofof thethe RentRent Note,Note, nono orderorder forfor evictioneviction couldcould bebe passedpassed againstagainst thethe respondent.respondent. AsAs notednoted hereinherein earlier,earlier, thisthis orderorder ofof thethe RentRent ControllerController waswas reversedreversed byby thethe AppellateAppellate Authority,Authority, Chandigarh,Chandigarh, interinter alia,alia, onon thethe findingsfindings thatthat non-non- productionproduction ofof “Rent“Rent Note”Note” andand non-appearancenon-appearance ofof thethe landlord/appellantlandlord/appellant inin thethe witnesswitness boxbox couldcould notnot bebe takentaken toto bebe aa groundground forfor rejectingrejecting thethe evictioneviction application.application. RelyingRelying onon twotwo decisionsdecisions ofof thethe PunjabPunjab andand HaryanaHaryana HighHigh Court,Court, namely,namely, SudarshanSudarshan KumariKumari vs.vs. AnandAnand KumarKumar KhemkaKhemka [1985[1985 (2)(2) RCJRCJ 590]590] andand Ms.Ms. KamlaKamla KhannaKhanna Vs.Vs. LalLal ChandChand PaltaPalta 19891989 (2)(2) RCRRCR 67,67, thethe AppellateAppellate AuthorityAuthority heldheld thatthat eveneven ifif thethe buildingbuilding waswas letlet outout forfor commercialcommercial purposes,purposes, stillstill thethe respondentrespondent couldcould notnot bebe allowedallowed toto continuecontinue toto occupyoccupy thethe demiseddemised premisespremises forfor commercialcommercial purposespurposes inin aa residentialresidential areaarea andand alsoalso inin aa residentialresidential buildingbuilding inin viewview ofof thethe provisionsprovisions ofof thethe DevelopmentDevelopment andand RegulationRegulation ActAct andand SectionSection 1111 ofof thethe Act.Act.
16.16. AsAs notednoted hereinherein earlier,earlier, thethe HighHigh Court,Court, inin Revision,Revision, hadhad setset asideaside thethe orderorder ofof thethe AppellateAppellate AuthorityAuthority andand restoredrestored thethe orderorder ofof thethe RentRent Controller,Controller, Chandigarh,Chandigarh, rejectingrejecting thethe applicationapplication forfor evictioneviction filedfiled byby thethe appellant.appellant. 17.17. AA readingreading ofof thethe impugnedimpugned judgmentjudgment ofof thethe HighHigh CourtCourt wouldwould clearlyclearly showshow thatthat thethe judgmentjudgment ofof thethe HighHigh CourtCourt waswas basedbased onlyonly onon thethe groundground thatthat thethe buildingbuilding waswas letlet outout forfor commercialcommercial purposespurposes fromfrom thethe timetime ofof inductioninduction ofof thethe respondentrespondent inin thethe demiseddemised premisespremises andand thethe respondentrespondent hadhad beenbeen usingusing thethe samesame asas suchsuch sincesince thethe inceptioninception ofof thethe tenancytenancy and,and, therefore,therefore, thethe provisionprovision ofof SectionSection 13(2)(ii)(b)13(2)(ii)(b) ofof thethe ActAct couldcould notnot bebe attractedattracted becausebecause thethe respondentrespondent hadhad notnot usedused thethe demiseddemised premisespremises forfor aa purposepurpose otherother thanthan thatthat forfor whichwhich itit waswas leasedleased outout toto himhim andand accordingly,accordingly, nono orderorder ofof evictioneviction couldcould bebe passedpassed againstagainst thethe respondent.respondent. 18.18. BeforeBefore wewe proceedproceed further,further, asas notednoted hereinherein earlier,earlier, wewe maymay keepkeep itit onon recordrecord thatthat neitherneither thethe appellantappellant nornor thethe respondentrespondent hadhad broughtbrought thethe “Rent“Rent Note”Note” onon record,record, onon thethe basisbasis ofof which,which, thethe CourtCourt couldcould straightstraight awayaway determinedetermine andand adjudgeadjudge thethe purposepurpose forfor whichwhich thethe demiseddemised premisespremises waswas letlet out.out.
19.19. LearnedLearned counselcounsel appearingappearing onon behalfbehalf ofof thethe appellant,appellant, inin thethe firstfirst instance,instance, contendedcontended thatthat inin factfact thethe respondentrespondent waswas inductedinducted asas aa tenanttenant inin respectrespect ofof thethe demiseddemised premisespremises forfor residentialresidential useuse asas thethe appellantappellant couldcould notnot inductinduct himhim forfor commercialcommercial useuse inin viewview ofof SectionSection 1111 ofof thethe ActAct asas wellwell asas inin viewview ofof thethe barbar imposedimposed underunder thethe DevelopmentDevelopment andand RegulationRegulation Act.Act. ItIt waswas furtherfurther contendedcontended byby thethe learnedlearned counselcounsel forfor thethe appellantappellant thatthat eveneven ifif thethe respondentrespondent waswas inductedinducted asas aa tenanttenant inin respectrespect ofof thethe demiseddemised premisespremises forfor commercialcommercial purposespurposes inin aa residentialresidential areaarea andand inin aa residentialresidential building,building, stillstill inin viewview ofof SectionSection 1111 ofof thethe ActAct andand alsoalso thethe relevantrelevant provisionsprovisions ofof thethe DevelopmentDevelopment andand RegulationRegulation Act,Act, thethe tenanttenant waswas liableliable toto bebe evictedevicted fromfrom thethe demiseddemised premises,premises, asas itit satisfiedsatisfied thethe conditionsconditions forfor evictioneviction enumeratedenumerated inin SectionSection 13(2)(ii)(b)13(2)(ii)(b) ofof thethe Act.Act. InIn supportsupport ofof thisthis contention,contention, reliancereliance waswas placedplaced onon aa decisiondecision ofof thisthis CourtCourt inin thethe casecase ofof RajinderRajinder SinghSingh vs.vs. JatinderJatinder DevDev NandaNanda [1999[1999 (9)(9) SCCSCC 18]18] andand alsoalso onon thethe decisionsdecisions ofof thisthis CourtCourt inin thethe casescases ofof VinodVinod KumarKumar AroraArora vs.vs. SurjitSurjit KaurKaur [1987[1987 (3)(3) SCCSCC 711],711], KamalKamal AroraArora vs.vs. AmarAmar SinghSingh && Ors.Ors. [1986[1986 Suppl.Suppl. SCCSCC 481]481] andand RaiRai ChandChand JainJain vs.vs. MissMiss ChandraChandra KantaKanta KhoslaKhosla [1991[1991 (1)(1) SCCSCC 422].422]. RelyingRelying onon thesethese decisions,decisions, itit was,was, therefore,therefore, contendedcontended byby thethe learnedlearned counselcounsel forfor thethe appellantappellant thatthat thethe HighHigh CourtCourt waswas inin errorerror inin rejectingrejecting thethe evictioneviction applicationapplication ofof thethe appellant.appellant.
20.20. TheThe submissionssubmissions soso mademade byby thethe learnedlearned counselcounsel forfor thethe appellantappellant werewere seriouslyseriously contestedcontested byby Mr.Mr. V.V. C.C. Mahajan,Mahajan, learnedlearned seniorsenior counselcounsel appearingappearing onon behalfbehalf ofof thethe respondent.respondent. AfterAfter takingtaking usus toto SectionSection 13(2)(ii)(b)13(2)(ii)(b) ofof thethe ActAct asas wellwell asas SectionsSections 1111 andand 1919 ofof thethe Act,Act, thethe learnedlearned seniorsenior counselcounsel contendedcontended thatthat ifif therethere waswas anyany violationviolation ofof SectionSection 1111 ofof thethe ActAct eithereither byby thethe landlordlandlord oror byby thethe tenant,tenant, thethe ActAct onlyonly empowersempowers thethe authorityauthority toto imposeimpose finefine whichwhich maymay extendextend toto oneone thousandthousand rupeesrupees onon thethe landlordlandlord oror thethe tenanttenant asas thethe casecase maymay be.be. InIn thisthis connection,connection, attentionattention waswas drawndrawn toto SectionSection 1919 ofof thethe Act,Act, whichwhich runsruns asas underunder :-:- “Section“Section 1919 ofof thethe ActAct confersconfers powerspowers ofof thethe authorityauthority toto imposeimpose penaltiespenalties –– ifif anyany personperson contravenescontravenes anyany ofof thethe provisionsprovisions ofof sub-sectionsub-section (2)(2) ofof SectionSection 9,9, sub-sectionsub-section (1)(1) ofof SectionSection 10,10, SectionSection 1111 oror SectionSection 18,18, hehe shallshall bebe punishablepunishable withwith finefine whichwhich maymay extendextend toto oneone thousandthousand rupees.rupees. (emphasis(emphasis supplied).supplied). 21.21. RelyingRelying onon SectionSection 1919 ofof thethe Act,Act, Mr.Mr. MahajanMahajan has,has, therefore,therefore, contendedcontended thatthat whenwhen statutestatute confersconfers onlyonly thethe powerpower toto imposeimpose penaltypenalty forfor contraventioncontravention ofof SectionSection 11,11, itit cannotcannot bebe heldheld thatthat forfor suchsuch contraventioncontravention thethe tenanttenant cancan bebe evictedevicted byby thethe landlordlandlord underunder SectionSection 13(2)(ii)(b)13(2)(ii)(b) ofof thethe Act.Act. SoSo farfar asas thethe decisionsdecisions citedcited byby thethe learnedlearned counselcounsel forfor thethe appellantappellant areare concerned,concerned, Mr.Mr. MahajanMahajan appearingappearing onon behalfbehalf ofof thethe respondentrespondent soughtsought toto contendcontend thatthat thosethose decisionsdecisions werewere clearlyclearly distinguishabledistinguishable onon facts.facts. Accordingly,Accordingly, Mr.Mr. MahajanMahajan contendedcontended thatthat thethe HighHigh CourtCourt waswas notnot inin errorerror inin rejectingrejecting thethe evictioneviction application.application. Finally,Finally, Mr.Mr. MahajanMahajan submittedsubmitted thatthat thisthis waswas notnot aa fitfit casecase toto interfereinterfere withwith thethe impugnedimpugned judgmentjudgment ofof thethe HighHigh CourtCourt inin thethe exerciseexercise ofof discretionarydiscretionary powerpower underunder ArticleArticle 136136 ofof thethe Constitution.Constitution. 22.22. WeWe havehave carefullycarefully examinedexamined thethe rivalrival submissionssubmissions ofof thethe learnedlearned counselcounsel forfor thethe parties,parties, asas notednoted hereinabove.hereinabove. AfterAfter examiningexamining thethe respectiverespective submissions,submissions, wewe areare ofof thethe consideredconsidered opinionopinion thatthat thisthis appealappeal mustmust succeed.succeed. ReasonsReasons areare asas follows:follows: 23.23. BeforeBefore wewe dealdeal withwith thethe submissionssubmissions ofof thethe learnedlearned counselcounsel forfor thethe parties,parties, asas notednoted hereinabove,hereinabove, letlet usus firstfirst decidedecide anan alliedallied questionquestion thatthat hashas croppedcropped upup duringduring thethe arguments.arguments. ThisThis questionquestion isis whetherwhether thethe tenanttenant waswas inductedinducted inin thethe demiseddemised premisespremises forfor residentialresidential useuse oror forfor commercialcommercial useuse oror waswas hehe inductedinducted forfor residentialresidential useuse butbut hehe convertedconverted suchsuch tenancytenancy toto bebe usedused forfor commercialcommercial useuse atat aa laterlater date.date. ToTo answeranswer thisthis questionquestion appropriately,appropriately, wewe havehave toto looklook intointo SectionSection 1111 ofof thethe ActAct andand thethe materialsmaterials onon record.record. WeWe havehave alreadyalready quotedquoted thisthis sectionsection earlier.earlier. ItIt isis quitequite clearclear fromfrom aa barebare readingreading ofof SectionSection 1111 ofof thethe ActAct thatthat aa tenanttenant oror aa landlordlandlord wouldwould notnot bebe permittedpermitted toto convertconvert aa residentialresidential premisespremises situatedsituated inin aa residentialresidential areaarea forfor aa commercialcommercial use.use. InIn thisthis connectionconnection anan admissionadmission mademade byby thethe respondentrespondent inin hishis evidenceevidence wouldwould bebe necessarynecessary toto bebe extracted:-extracted:- “It“It isis correctcorrect thatthat demiseddemised premisespremises areare situatedsituated inin thethe residentialresidential vicinity.vicinity. ItIt isis incorrectincorrect toto suggestsuggest thatthat II havehave notnot takentaken anyany permissionpermission fromfrom mymy landladylandlady toto carrycarry onon thethe commercialcommercial activity.activity. ItIt isis correctcorrect thatthat II havehave notnot takentaken anyany permissionpermission fromfrom thethe RentRent ControllerController forfor carryingcarrying onon thethe commercialcommercial activity.activity. ItIt isis correctcorrect thatthat thethe demiseddemised premisespremises cancan bebe resumedresumed atat anyany timetime becausebecause ofof carryingcarrying onon thethe commercialcommercial activity.”(Emphasisactivity.”(Emphasis supplied).supplied). 24.24. FromFrom thethe aboveabove admissionadmission ofof thethe respondent,respondent, itit isis evidentlyevidently clearclear thatthat thethe demiseddemised premisespremises isis situatedsituated inin aa residentialresidential areaarea andand thethe buildingbuilding inin whichwhich thethe demiseddemised premisespremises isis situatedsituated isis alsoalso aa residentialresidential buildingbuilding andand hehe hadhad alsoalso notnot takentaken anyany permissionpermission fromfrom thethe RentRent ControllerController forfor carryingcarrying onon commercialcommercial activitiesactivities andand thatthat thethe demiseddemised premisespremises cancan bebe resumedresumed atat anyany timetime becausebecause ofof carryingcarrying onon commercialcommercial activity.activity. SuchSuch beingbeing thethe position,position, itit cancan bebe safelysafely concludedconcluded thatthat thethe demiseddemised premisespremises beingbeing inin aa residentialresidential areaarea andand inin aa residentialresidential buildingbuilding inin whichwhich thethe commercialcommercial activityactivity waswas beingbeing carriedcarried outout byby thethe respondentrespondent withoutwithout thethe permissionpermission ofof thethe RentRent Controller,Controller, thethe productionproduction ofof thethe Rent-Rent- NoteNote toto findfind outout thethe purposepurpose forfor whichwhich thethe tenancytenancy waswas createdcreated shallshall notnot bebe decisive.decisive.
25.25. ItIt isis alsoalso clearclear fromfrom suchsuch admissionadmission ofof thethe respondentrespondent himselfhimself thatthat thethe appellantappellant cancan resumeresume thethe demiseddemised premisespremises atat anyany timetime becausebecause ofof carryingcarrying onon thethe commercialcommercial activityactivity andand thatthat thethe demiseddemised premisespremises isis inin aa residentialresidential areaarea andand alsoalso inin aa residentialresidential building.building. ThatThat apart,apart, SectionSection 1111 ofof thethe ActAct clearlyclearly prohibitsprohibits aa landlordlandlord oror aa tenanttenant toto convertconvert thethe purposepurpose ofof tenancytenancy withoutwithout thethe permissionpermission ofof thethe RentRent Controller.Controller. 26.26. SuchSuch beingbeing thethe position,position, wewe mustmust concludeconclude thatthat thethe respondentrespondent waswas inductedinducted byby thethe appellantappellant atat thethe initialinitial stagestage inin thethe demiseddemised premisespremises forfor residentialresidential purposespurposes butbut laterlater onon convertedconverted thethe tenancytenancy forfor commercialcommercial use.use. InIn thethe evictioneviction applicationapplication asas wellwell asas inin evidence,evidence, itit waswas thethe casecase ofof thethe appellantappellant thatthat inin thethe monthmonth ofof April,April, 1994,1994, thethe respondentrespondent waswas inductedinducted forfor residentialresidential useuse andand thethe commercialcommercial activitiesactivities werewere startedstarted byby himhim inin thethe monthmonth ofof December,December, 19941994 onwards.onwards. InIn viewview ofof ourour discussionsdiscussions mademade hereinabove,hereinabove, wewe mustmust holdhold thatthat thethe respondentrespondent waswas inductedinducted inin thethe demiseddemised premisespremises forfor residentialresidential useuse andand notnot forfor commercialcommercial purposespurposes butbut thethe respondentrespondent convertedconverted thethe tenancytenancy laterlater onon fromfrom residentialresidential toto commercialcommercial use.use.
27.27. ForFor thisthis purpose,purpose, wewe maymay safelysafely relyrely onon thethe observationobservation ofof thisthis CourtCourt inin RajinderRajinder Singh’sSingh’s CaseCase (Supra)(Supra) asas underunder :-:- “Section“Section 1111 ofof thethe ActAct prohibitsprohibits anan ownerowner andand occupieroccupier ofof thethe premisespremises toto convertconvert aa residentialresidential buildingbuilding intointo aa non-residentialnon-residential buildingbuilding exceptexcept withwith thethe permissionpermission inin writingwriting byby thethe Controller.Controller. Therefore,Therefore, aa residentialresidential premisespremises couldcould notnot bebe usedused forfor non-residentialnon-residential purpose,purpose, namely,namely, forfor runningrunning aa school.school. InIn viewview thereof,thereof, wewe areare ofof thethe opinionopinion thatthat thethe judgmentjudgment ofof thethe HighHigh CourtCourt sufferssuffers fromfrom seriousserious infirmityinfirmity andand deservesdeserves toto bebe setset aside.”aside.” [Emphasis[Emphasis supplied]supplied] 28.28. InIn viewview ofof thethe findingsfindings mademade hereinabove,hereinabove, wewe areare inin agreementagreement withwith thethe submissionssubmissions ofof thethe learnedlearned counselcounsel forfor thethe appellantappellant thatthat thethe respondentrespondent hadhad clearlyclearly violatedviolated thethe provisionsprovisions ofof SectionSection 13(2)(ii)(b)13(2)(ii)(b) ofof thethe Act.Act. 29.29. AtAt thisthis stage,stage, wewe maymay dealdeal withwith thethe submissionsubmission ofof Mr.Mr. Mahajan,Mahajan, learnedlearned seniorsenior counselcounsel forfor thethe respondent.respondent. AsAs notednoted hereinabove,hereinabove, Mr.Mr. Mahajan,Mahajan, arguedargued thatthat inin viewview ofof SectionSection 1919 ofof thethe Act,Act, whichwhich clearlyclearly sayssays thatthat thethe CourtCourt oror thethe RentRent ControllerController isis conferredconferred withwith powerpower toto imposeimpose penaltypenalty forfor violationviolation ofof thethe provisionsprovisions ofof SectionSection 1111 ofof thethe ActAct andand sincesince thethe ActAct isis aa beneficialbeneficial legislationlegislation andand benefitsbenefits thethe tenant,tenant, itit wouldwould bebe difficultdifficult toto conceiveconceive thatthat forfor thethe samesame offence,offence, aa tenanttenant cancan alsoalso bebe evictedevicted fromfrom thethe demiseddemised premises.premises. InIn ourour view,view, thisthis submissionsubmission ofof Mr.Mr. MahajanMahajan hashas nono substance.substance. SectionSection 1111 speaksspeaks aboutabout conversionconversion ofof aa residentialresidential buildingbuilding intointo aa non-residentialnon-residential buildingbuilding andand alsoalso prohibitsprohibits anan ownerowner oror anan occupieroccupier toto convertconvert thethe residentialresidential buildingbuilding intointo aa nonnon residentialresidential building.building.
30.30. SectionSection 1313 speaksspeaks aboutabout thethe groundground onon thethe basisbasis ofof whichwhich aa tenanttenant cancan bebe evicted.evicted. InIn ourour view,view, thethe scopescope ofof SectionsSections 1111 andand 1313 areare quitequite different.different. FromFrom aa readingreading ofof SectionSection 1919 ofof thethe Act,Act, itit isis clearclear thatthat SectionSection 1919 givesgives anan additionaladditional rightright toto thethe authoritiesauthorities toto imposeimpose penaltypenalty ifif aa personperson hashas contravenedcontravened thethe provisionsprovisions ofof SectionSection 1111 ofof thethe Act.Act. Therefore,Therefore, itit wouldwould notnot bebe difficultdifficult toto holdhold thatthat SectionSection 1313 givesgives onlyonly aa rightright toto aa landlordlandlord toto bringbring actionaction againstagainst aa tenanttenant whowho hashas usedused thethe demiseddemised premisespremises forfor aa purposepurpose otherother thanthan forfor whichwhich itit waswas leasedleased out,out, whereaswhereas forfor conversionconversion ofof residentialresidential premisespremises intointo aa commercialcommercial premisespremises wouldwould alsoalso entailentail aa tenanttenant toto bebe punishedpunished withwith finefine underunder SectionSection 1919 ofof thethe Act.Act. ThatThat apart,apart, fromfrom aa barebare readingreading ofof thethe ActAct andand objectobject forfor whichwhich thethe ActAct waswas introducedintroduced andand alsoalso afterafter lookinglooking intointo thethe scopescope andand onon considerationconsideration ofof thethe entireentire provisionsprovisions ofof thethe Act,Act, itit cannotcannot bebe saidsaid thatthat forfor violationviolation ofof SectionSection 1111 ofof thethe Act,Act, thatthat isis toto say,say, aa personperson usesuses aa particularparticular premisespremises whichwhich cancan onlyonly bebe usedused forfor residentialresidential purposespurposes butbut isis beingbeing usedused forfor otherother purposespurposes whichwhich entailsentails impositionimposition ofof penaltypenalty underunder SectionSection 1919 ofof thethe Act,Act, wouldwould notnot meanmean thatthat SectionSection 13(2)(ii)(b)13(2)(ii)(b) andand SectionSection 1919 cannotcannot gogo handhand inin hand.hand. Therefore,Therefore, thethe onlyonly questionquestion thatthat remainsremains toto bebe seenseen isis whetherwhether aa personperson whowho hashas convertedconverted thethe purposepurpose forfor whichwhich thethe premisespremises waswas letlet outout withoutwithout thethe permissionpermission ofof thethe RentRent Controller,Controller, cancan bebe punishedpunished onlyonly withwith finefine underunder SectionSection 1919 oror cancan hehe alsoalso bebe evictedevicted underunder SectionSection 13(2)(ii)(b)13(2)(ii)(b) ofof thethe Act.Act. LookingLooking atat thethe objectobject ofof thethe ActAct andand thethe provisionsprovisions mademade therein,therein, andand consideringconsidering thethe factfact thatthat thethe ActAct isis aa beneficialbeneficial legislationlegislation notnot onlyonly forfor thethe tenanttenant butbut alsoalso forfor thethe tenant,tenant, itit cancan safelysafely bebe inferredinferred thatthat bothboth thethe sectionssections namely,namely, SectionSection 1313 andand SectionSection 1919 cancan bebe appliedapplied whenwhen therethere isis aa violationviolation ofof Section11.Section11. Therefore,Therefore, inin ourour view,view, readingreading ofof SectionSection 1313 andand SectionSection 1919 together,together, wewe cancan safelysafely comecome toto thethe conclusionconclusion thatthat thethe tenanttenant oror thethe landlordlandlord cancan bebe punishedpunished withwith finefine underunder SectionSection 1919 ofof thethe ActAct andand atat thethe samesame timetime thethe tenanttenant cancan bebe evictedevicted underunder SectionSection 13(2)(ii)(b)13(2)(ii)(b) ofof thethe ActAct ifif thethe conditionsconditions laidlaid downdown inin thethe saidsaid sectionssections areare satisfied.satisfied. ThatThat apartapart ifif violationviolation ofof SectionSection 1111 ofof thethe ActAct resultsresults inin finefine underunder SectionSection 1919 ofof thethe Act,Act, inin thatthat casecase thethe tenantstenants whowho havehave violatedviolated thethe provisionsprovisions ofof SectionSection 1111 ofof thethe ActAct couldcould getget awayaway fromfrom evictioneviction onlyonly byby payingpaying finefine thatthat maymay bebe imposedimposed uponupon themthem [tenants].[tenants]. IfIf thisthis cancan bebe accepted,accepted, thethe purposepurpose andand objectobject ofof thethe ActAct forfor whichwhich thisthis ActAct waswas introducedintroduced wouldwould bebe frustratedfrustrated asas thethe residentialresidential areaarea wouldwould bebe convertedconverted intointo commercial-commercial- cum-residentialcum-residential areaarea oror vice-versa,vice-versa, whichwhich waswas notnot thethe intentionintention ofof thethe LegislatureLegislature andand therefore,therefore, itit cannotcannot bebe saidsaid thatthat forfor violationviolation ofof SectionSection 1111 ofof thethe Act,Act, thethe onlyonly remedyremedy availableavailable waswas underunder SectionSection 1919 ofof thethe ActAct i.e.i.e. impositionimposition ofof fine.fine. InIn viewview ofof ourour discussionsdiscussions mademade hereinherein above,above, wewe areare ofof thethe viewview thatthat thethe appellantappellant hadhad successfullysuccessfully mademade outout aa casecase forfor evictioneviction ofof thethe respondentrespondent onon thethe groundground mentionedmentioned hereinherein above.above.
31.31. ForFor thethe reasonsreasons aforesaid,aforesaid, thethe impugnedimpugned judgmentjudgment ofof thethe HighHigh CourtCourt isis setset asideaside andand thatthat ofof thethe AppellateAppellate AuthorityAuthority isis restoredrestored andand thethe applicationapplication forfor evictioneviction filedfiled byby thethe appellantappellant isis thusthus allowed.allowed.
32.32. ConsideringConsidering thethe factsfacts andand circumstancescircumstances ofof thethe presentpresent case,case, wewe grantgrant sixsix monthsmonths timetime toto thethe respondentrespondent toto vacatevacate thethe premisespremises subjectsubject toto filingfiling ofof aa usualusual undertakingundertaking inin thisthis CourtCourt withinwithin aa monthmonth fromfrom thisthis date.date.
33.33. TheThe appealappeal isis thusthus allowed.allowed. ThereThere willwill bebe nono orderorder asas toto costs.costs.
[Tarun[Tarun Chatterjee]Chatterjee] NewNew Delhi;Delhi; ………………………… JulyJuly 21,21, 2009.2009. [Aftab[Aftab Alam]Alam]