Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 628 OF 2017 (ARISING FROM SLP(C) NO. 37467/2012)

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. APPELLANT(S)                                 VERSUS

SATISH KUMAR MEHTA (D) THR. LRS. RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T KURIAN, J.

Leave granted. 2. The appellants are before this Court aggrieved by the  judgment  dated  6.8.2012  in  RFA(OS)  No.107/2009 and Cross Objections C.M. No.472/2010.  The appeal was filed by the appellants herein aggrieved by the judgment  dated  23.09.2009  in  Civil  Suit  (OS) No.264/2004.  That suit was filed by the respondent challenging  the  demand  for  an  amount  of Rs.42,11,604/-  towards  misuser  charges,  for  having used  the  residential  property  for  non-residential purposes.  No doubt, such misuse was by a sub-tenant, who  was  evicted  by  the  respondent  subsequently  on account of violation of the lease conditions.  The

1

Page 2

learned Single Judge decreed the suit.  The decretal portion reads as follows:

“...Accordingly,  the  demand  raised  in the letter dated 17th December 2003 of the Defendants towards misuser charges payable by the Plaintiff in respect of the suit property  would  stand  modified  as  under: (i)  Rs.10,31,630/-  +  Rs.10,316/-  towards misuser charges for the first floor (ii) Rs.55,866/- for the misuse of the ground floor  the  plaintiff.   (iii)  Other  sums demanded in the letter dated 17th December 2003 i.e. the sums under Sl. Nos.1 to 3, Ground  Rent  under  Head  “A”,  and  Misuse Charges at Ground Floor under Head “B” to the  extent  admitted  by  the  plaintiff  in para 25 of the plaint (and in para 21 of his affidavit dated 15th September 2006). The  above  sums  will  be  paid  by  the Plaintiff together with simple interest at 10%  p.a.  from  1st January  2004  till  the date  of  payment.   The  interest  rate  is what  is  indicated  in  the  calculations given by the Plaintiff himself.  Since the demand raised is as of 17th December 2003, the  interest  payable  will  be  calculated for the period 1st January 2004 till date of  actual  payment.   Against  the  sum  so payable,  the  Plaintiff  is  entitled  to adjust the amount of Rs.10 lakhs deposited in this Court together with the interest accrued thereon, and after payment of the balance  amount  within  a  period  of  four weeks, the Plaintiff is entitled to have the breaches regularised.”

3. The  appellants  pursued  the  matter  before  the Division Bench in the First Appeal.  The respondent filed a cross objection.  It was the main contention of the appellants that having regard to the admitted misuse, the respondent was liable to pay the demand, as raised by the appellants.  On the contrary, the respondent  contended  that  even  assuming  that  the respondent was liable to pay the misuser charges it

2

Page 3

could  in  no  way  exceed  the  rent  he  had  already received, in terms of the Circular dated 31.03.1976. We  find  it  difficult  to  appreciate  the  contention raised by the respondent.  That circular only states that  having  regard  to  the  peculiar  facts  of  each case, in consultation with the Ministry of Works and Housing and Finance and taking note of the inability on the part of the lessee, an appropriate order would be passed limiting it to the income of the lessee. 4. Be that as it may, on going through the plaint, we  find  that  in  unequivocal  terms,  the respondent/plaintiff had averred in the plaint that the charges cannot exceed Rs.10,31,630/-. 5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants  extensively  and  Mr.  Jayant  Bhushan, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents and going through the pleadings we find that in any case the respondent cannot go back on what he had agreed towards the payment of misuse charges, in the suit  filed  by  him.   Though  Mr.  Bhushan,  learned senior counsel invited our attention to a decision of this  Court  in  D.D.A. v.  Ram  Prakash,  reported  in (2011)  4  SCC  180,  we  do  not  think  that  the  said decision  would be  of any  help to  the respondents. What the Court held in the said case was that what would be the reasonable time would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.  In the present

3

Page 4

case, action had already been initiated in 1978 for the misuse of the premises. 6. Mr.  Bhushan,  learned  senior  counsel,  made  a vehement submission that the offer to pay an amount of  Rs.10,31,630/-  was  an  alternative  submission recorded  by  the  Division  Bench  in  the  impugned judgment.  We have gone through the plaint.  We find it difficult to appreciate that it was an alternative submission.  The  clear  case  of  the respondent/plaintiff was that the amount in any case, cannot exceed Rs.10,31,630/-. 7. Though,  normally  the  matter  should  have  been remanded  for  fresh  consideration,  having  regard  to the  fact that  the litigation  has been  pending for long and since it is in the interest of parties on both  the  sides  to  give  a  quietus  to  the  dispute, without relegating the parties for another round of litigation this appeal is partly allowed by restoring the decree passed by the learned Single Judge on the original side. 8. Learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  the respondents submits that the amount, as decreed by the learned Single Judge on the original side have already  been  paid.   Needless  to  mention  that  the amount  paid  will  be  duly  adjusted  towards  the decreetal amount. 9. There shall be no order as to costs.

4

Page 5

10. Pending  application(s),  if  any,  shall  stand disposed of.  

.......................J.               [KURIAN JOSEPH]  

.......................J.               [A.M. KHANWILKAR]  

NEW DELHI; JANUARY 10, 2017.

5