S.S. Chadha, J.
(1) This second appeal under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is directed against the order of October 10,1977 passed by Rent Control Tribunal Delhi in appeal maintaining the order of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi under Section 14(1)(k) read with Section 14(11) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
(2) The respondent-landlord filed a petition for eviction on the ground covered by clause (k) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) pleading that the premises comprising of two bed rooms, kitchen, bath and one garrage locked on the ground floor of house No. 1782 M.P. D.P. Colony Kalkaji, New Delhi let out initially to M/s Goel Hardware and Sanitary Stores of which Shri K.R. Goel was one of the partners for residential purposes but the premises were used for commercial purposes and on an objection being raised to the said misuser, the partners of the said firm terminated the lease with effect from April 1. 1971 and Shri K.R. Goel, alone became tenant at the old rate of rent of Rs. 250 per month and premises were let out for residential purposes. As the tenant failed to stop the misuse of the premises, and which misuse is in contravention of the lease terms under which the premises are held by the landlord from the Delhi Development Authority, the eviction petition was brought.
(3) There is a concurrent finding recorded by the Additional Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal that Shri K.R. Goel, alone is the tenant in the premises in dispute and that the premises were let for residential purposes. There is also a concurrent finding of Courts below that the tenant had been told that objection of misuse has been raised by Government of India, Ministry of Rehabilitation and the tenant was called upon to stop the misuser. The validity of the notice of the termination of the contractual tenancy of the tenant has also been held by both the courts below. Finding is also recorded that the premises have been used for commercial purposes in the contravention of the terms of the lease under which the plot was leased out to the landlord by the authorities. The Additional Rent Controller Delhi by order dated October 17, 1975 directed the tenant to comply with the conditions imposed on the landlord by the President of India while granting the lease in which the premises in dispute are constructed & to stop misuse of the premises in dispute within a period of six months.
(4) The tenant filed an appeal against the order of the Additional Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal by order of October 10, 1977 maintained the order of the Additional Rent Controller but granted one month's time to the tenant to stop to the misuser. The tenant came to this Court in second appeal. This Court had granted time to the tenant to stop the misuse by 30th June, 1978,
(5) As there was a dispute between the parties about the stopping of the misuse of the premises in dispute by 30th June. 1978 I directed the controller to determine this. The Additional Rent Cotroller after recording the evidence of the parties has submitted the report with the finding that Shri K.R. Goel the tenant stopped business in the suit premises on 30th June, 1978. This finding is supported by the evidence placed on the record.
(6) There is a concurrent finding that Shri K.R. Goel, the tenant has, notwithstanding the previous notice, used or dealt with the premises in a manner contrary to the conditions imposed on the landlord by the Government Delhi Development Authority while giving him a lease of the land on which the premises are situated. No order for the recovery of possession of any premises can he passed if the tenant within such time as may be specified in this behalf, complies with the conditions imposed on the landlord by any of the authorities. The tenant has stopped the misuse of the premises on the 30th June, 1978 within the time allowed by the. Additional Rent Controller/Rent Control Tribunal and then by this Court, and as such no order for the recovery of possession of the premises can be made against the appellant. The parties will henceforth be governed in their relationship of the landlord and tenant in accordance with the contract subject to the provisions of the Act. The appellant may now pay rent direct to the landlord in accordance with the contract and the law.