There is a distinction between “commercial purpose” and “industrial purpose”. Whether an activity is commercial or industrial in nature has to be decided by facts of each case- Delhi High Court.
In case the subject property was let out by the petitioner, while no written agreement was executed between the parties at the time of the inception of tenancy, it was stated in the eviction petition that subject property was let out for commercial purposes, for running of a shop for selling biscuits and confectionary items. The installed ovens were emitting excessive smoke and heat, and creating polluting and nuisance, leading to the subject property becoming inhabitable and badly damaged. This was decided by a single bench heading HON’BLE JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL in the case of DEVRAJ VS SAROJ SINGHAL (CM (M) 1132/2021).
The landlord sent the tenant a notice under Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘DRC Act’) on 20th August, 1996 to stop the said misuse; however the misuse did not stop immediately .He filed the eviction petition in respect of the subject property on the grounds that the subject property was being used for a purpose other than for which the said property was let, and such misuse was creating a public nuisance, therefore this appeal is filed.
The counsel for the petitioner stated that in the present case even if certain legal heirs of the landlord had not filed the eviction proceedings, since, they had not objected to the eviction petition, the eviction petition would not stand abated; as per the evidence of the landlord, the tenants had misused the subject property as the subject property was let out for running the bakery shop and not for manufacturing of bakery products;
The counsel appearing on behalf of respondent assailed that the impugned order passed by the RCT on the following grounds. Running of a shop for selling bakery products would necessarily include having a manufacturing facility at the subject property for the manufacture of bakery products. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in AMRIK CHAND VS. HARBANS SINGH 7 (1971) DLT 125 to state that for eviction under Section 14(1) (c) of the DRC Act, the tenant has to misuse the entire premises, whether it is a building or a part of a building, let out to him.
The hon’ble court after hearing the counsels for the parties and perused the record of the case stated that “the said subject property could not be used for the purposes of manufacturing bakery products without the consent of the landlord as that would amount to a user other than the purposes for which the property was let out. There is a distinction between “commercial purpose” and “industrial purpose/ In light of the aforesaid, this Court finds no merit in the submission of the counsel for the tenant that the misuse was only in part of the subject property, and therefore, the order of eviction under Section 14(1)(c) of the DRC Act could not be passed, therefore the petition and the pending applications are dismissed.”
Judgement reviewed by Pratikshya Pattnaik