9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (9) TMI 241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted by Mrs. Aruna Gupta in favor of M/s. Usha Sales Ltd. on 27th January 1981. One of the clauses agreed upon was as under : THE accommodation will not be used for the residence of any other officer than Mr. L.L. Jain unless this has been agreed to by you (the landlady). It concerned the first floor of property bearing No. 99 Anand Lok, New Delhi). (3) There is no dispute that L.L. Jain resigned from the service of Usha Sales Ltd. and relinquished charge on 5-5-1982. He thereafter left the rented premises and removed his house-hold articles. The telephone of the company however continued to be installed there. Some furniture provided by the company to the employee was also stated to be still there. The company then planned to induct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... employee of the tenant company. While not expressing any opinion on the controversy as to whether the furniture of the company was still lying in the demised premises, as was asserted by the company or had been shifted to the garage on the ground floor, as had been asserted by the landlady, it was ordered that since the tenancy had not till then been lawfully determined, the landlady could not restrict the company from using the premises though the latter was obliged to use the same in terms of the agreement only. (5) On the next day an application was moved by the landlady(1.A. 2260 of 1982) in which it was stated that on the preceding night there was and apprehension of breach of peace at the spot as the company had attempted to induct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e on the preceding day or was in conflict with the same or amounted to its review. So far as allowing the possession to remain with the plaintiff company and restraining the defendant landlady from obstructing or interfering in the same, they were upheld and the company was allowed to resume and continue in possession. In case the landlady wanted to dispossess the company, the proper remedy was noted to be by way of recourse to the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act. At the sometime there was a clear observation in that order that the company too was obliged to use the premises in terms of the lease agreement only. In the order dated 28th May, 1982 Therefore when the plaintiff company was required to abide by the user of the premises as h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n to the landlady and she was required to sign the same in approval if she accepted the contents of the letter. The landlady actually did so. The company had thus of its own volition and fully understanding the implications thereof agreed to this stipulation. I do not prima facie see why it should not be obliged to abide by the same and honour it even as an interim measure. The over all impact of this document prima facie left little doubt that though the lease had been obtained by the company, it was for the specific purpose of the residence of its particular employee. There was nothing unusual in the same as big companies do provide facility of residence at their expense to their employees and obtain lease in the companies' names for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry out his obligations and pay the rent. That was a case where the landlord had brought, a suit for the recovery of rent and the tenant had pleaded in defense that the suit was not maintainable in civil court as the proper remedy for the landlord was to seek ejectment of the tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent. The learned Judge observed that he was not prepared to hold that the jurisdiction of the civil courts was barred implacably. The question of implied bar really did not arise because there was no provision in the Rent Control Act entitling a landlord, not wanting to eject a tenant to lay a claim before the controller for rent. (12) Similar controversy again arose before J.D. Jain, J. of this Court in the case of Permeshwar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purpose only) and any violation thereof may email forfeiture of the perpetual lease. The owner if subsequently lets out the property to a tenant imposing the same condition about user, and finds later that the user is altogether changed with the result that the Government threatens to forfeit the perpetual lease in case the misuse is not forthwith stopped, he can as Well by a civil action seek restraint of the tenant and require him to forth with stop the misuse ,not with standing the availability of remedy by way of ejectment, last his perpetual lease itself is put an end to. (14) I am Therefore of the considered opinion that the limitation imposed in the orders dated 27th and 28th May, 1982 while allowing interim relief to the plaintif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
