1. Court’s decision
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition under Article 227 challenging the eviction of a protected tenant under Section 14(1)(c) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The eviction was ordered on the ground that the tenant had changed the permitted user of the shop—originally let out for sale of electrical goods—by stocking hazardous and inflammable materials such as paints, thinners, tarpin and chemicals. Both the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal had concurrently held that misuse was proved, statutory notice under Section 14(5) was duly served, and the misuse constituted a nuisance and safety risk. The High Court found no perversity or illegality warranting interference and dismissed the petition as frivolous.
2. Facts
The landlord filed an eviction petition alleging that the tenant was inducted for running an electrical goods business in Shop No. 6 at Village Madipur, but later began storing hazardous materials, posing risk to other occupants of the premises. A statutory notice dated 11.04.2007 under Section 14(5) directed the tenant to stop the misuse, but no compliance followed.
The tenant contested the claim, asserting that the premises had earlier been used for hardware, sanitary materials and paints, relying on a 1999 quit notice. A full trial ensued. The Rent Controller, by judgment dated 20.12.2012, allowed eviction. The Tribunal dismissed the tenant’s appeal on 12.01.2015. The tenant invoked Article 227, seeking reversal.
3. Issues
- Whether the tenant misused the premises by changing the purpose for which they were let.
- Whether the statutory notice under Section 14(5) was validly served.
- Whether the alleged concealment of a 1999 quit notice vitiated the proceedings.
- Whether storage of paints and chemicals amounted to nuisance or hazard under Section 14(1)(c).
- Whether concurrent findings of misuse could be interfered with under Article 227.
4. Petitioner’s arguments
The tenant argued that there was no evidence that the stored materials were inflammable or dangerous, and that photographs of two drums outside the shop did not prove misuse. He contended that a 1999 notice demonstrated that the premises were earlier let for hardware and paint-related business; therefore, no change of user occurred. The tenant alleged concealment of this notice by the landlord.
He further argued that a municipal licence was not required unless materials exceeded prescribed quantities. He also challenged service of statutory notice, asserting that delivery to his brother could not amount to service on him. Finally, he contended that courts below misapplied Section 27 of the General Clauses Act regarding presumption of service.
5. Respondent’s arguments
The landlord submitted that the petition was rightly allowed because the tenant was inducted for an electrical goods shop but later began stocking paints and chemicals without consent or licence. The 1999 notice, it was argued, was a quit notice issued for non-payment of rent, irrelevant to the statutory requirement under Section 14(5).
The landlord highlighted that the civil court, in an earlier suit (No. 1469/11/2007), had restrained the tenant from storing hazardous materials in the premises, and that judgment had attained finality. The statutory notice under Section 14(5) was duly proved, and acknowledgment by the tenant’s brother was valid service, there being no evidence of estrangement or prejudice. The landlord argued that the tenant’s petition was an attempt to seek reappreciation of evidence, impermissible under Article 227.
6. Analysis of the law
Section 14(1)(c) requires proof that the tenant used premises for a purpose different from the original letting, without written consent. Section 14(5) mandates a notice requiring the tenant to stop misuse and failure to comply within a month. Additionally, eviction can be ordered only if the misuse constitutes nuisance, damage or detriment.
The Court reaffirmed that under Article 227, High Courts do not act as appellate bodies and cannot re-evaluate evidence unless findings are perverse. In this case, the civil court decree of 13.10.2013 had already recorded misuse involving hazardous materials, and that decree stood unchallenged. The two rent authorities had again analysed evidence, including photographs, written statements, and the municipal challan for storing electrical goods, plastic pipes and hardware without licence. The High Court held that this formed adequate material to justify the concurrent findings.
Service of notice under Section 14(5) was also properly presumed under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act because delivery was made at the correct address and acknowledged by the tenant’s brother, with no rebuttal evidence.
7. Precedent analysis
While the judgment does not cite external case law, it relies on established principles:
1. Limited scope of Article 227
Interference lies only where findings are grossly illegal, irrational or perverse. The High Court is not to act as a second appellate court.
2. Misuse under Section 14(1)(c)
Misuse must involve change of user without consent, and must amount to nuisance or detriment. The unchallenged civil decree conclusively established misuse.
3. Presumption of service under Section 27, General Clauses Act
If properly addressed and acknowledged at residence, notice is presumed served unless rebutted. The tenant produced no rebuttal.
These principles justified the Court’s refusal to disturb the concurrent findings.
8. Court’s reasoning
The Court found no perversity in the concurrent findings that the tenant misused the premises by storing inflammable materials without consent or licence. The earlier civil decree had conclusively established such misuse, and the tenant never appealed it.
The Court rejected the plea about the 1999 notice, clarifying it was unrelated to the statutory notice required under Section 14(5). The relevant notice—Ex.PW1/3—was validly served and uncontroverted.
The Court also held that photographs, the tenant’s own pleadings, and the municipal challan collectively proved nuisance and detriment. The tenant’s denial of misuse in his written statement, contrary to photographic and documentary evidence, further weakened his case.
Because the High Court cannot reappreciate evidence under Article 227, and both lower courts had rendered reasoned conclusions, the petition was dismissed as frivolous. The execution court was directed to expedite enforcement, considering eviction had remained stayed for over a decade.
9. Conclusion
The High Court upheld the Rent Controller and Tribunal’s decisions, confirming eviction under Section 14(1)(c) for misuse of premises. The statutory notice was validly served, misuse stood proved, and the tenant’s objections lacked merit. The petition and all applications were dismissed, and the execution court was directed to act expeditiously.
10. Implications
This judgment reinforces key principles in Delhi rent litigation:
• Misuse involving hazardous materials is treated seriously and can justify eviction.
• Once a civil decree records misuse, a tenant cannot re-litigate the issue before rent authorities.
• Service of statutory notice need not be personal—acknowledgment at residence suffices.
• Under Article 227, High Courts will not interfere with well-reasoned concurrent findings.
The ruling strengthens landlords’ remedies under Section 14(1)(c) and clarifies procedural standards for tenants contesting misuse allegations.
CASE LAW REFERENCES
(Judgment does not cite external authorities; below summarises doctrines applied.)
1. Principles of Article 227 jurisdiction
High Courts cannot revisit evidence; only perversity or illegality warrants intervention.
2. Misuse under Section 14(1)(c) of the Delhi Rent Control Act
Requires change of user without consent, constituting nuisance or detriment.
3. Notice under Section 14(5) and Section 27 GCA
Presumption of service valid when delivered to proper address and acknowledged.
FAQs
1. Why did the Delhi High Court refuse to interfere with the eviction order?
Because both the Rent Controller and Tribunal had given concurrent findings of misuse, and Article 227 does not permit reappreciation of evidence.
2. Is storage of paints and chemicals considered misuse under rent law?
Yes. Changing user from electrical goods to storing inflammable materials without consent constitutes misuse and nuisance.
3. Was the statutory notice under Section 14(5) valid even if served on the tenant’s brother?
Yes. Service at residence with acknowledgment triggers presumption of valid service.