Important Point
1. Permission granted under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act for limited period tenancy cannot be challenged after the expiry of the tenancy.
2. Copies of petition, counter, rejoinder etc. should be served on the other side in advance getting acknowledgment of service endorsed on such papers.

Headnote:Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958-Section 21-Tenancy for limited period-Tenant and landlord making joint application before Rent Controller for permission to create tenancy for a limited period-Execution petition for delivery of possession after expiry of limited period-Objection by tenant that he was not party to agreement before Rent Controller and permission in question was obtained by landlord fraudulently-Whether plea factually correct-Held, no-Whether it is open to tenant, to challenge validity of permission granted under Section 21 after the expiry of the tenancy?-Held, No.
       (ii) Civil Court Practice and Procedure-Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958-Section 58-Rule 23-Rules of practice-Copies of petition, rejoinder etc. should be served on other side in advance getting acknowledgement of service endorsed on same-No such practice in Delhi-Framing of rules necessary-Rule should be made that any paper served on counsel that it is true copy of original filed in Court and it should be signed by counsel or the party.
       Held : A very distressing state of affairs prevails in the Court of ARC and Rent Tribunal. We are told by learned counsel that the situation is the same, if not worse in subordinate courts on the regular civil side. We found that the rejoinder of the tenant said to have been filed in the Court on 11.10.85 does not contain any endorsement by the counsel for the landlord acknowledging receipt of a copy thereof. We were informed by counsel that there is no practice of serving such papers on the other side in advance and getting the acknowledgement of service endorsed on the same. It was stated that such papers would be handed over across the table to the counsel in open court and some times, the Presiding Officer would enter the same in the court diary. We were also told that there is no rule in that regard. That is a very unsatisfactory situation. A rule should be made that papers intended to be filed in Court in matters in which the other side has entered appearance should be served on the opposite party under acknowledgment endorsed thereon. It is seen that the copy of the rejoinder served on counsel for the landlord in the Court of the ARC does not bear the initial or the signature of the tenant or his counsel, nor is there any endorsement that it is a true copy of the original rejoinder. A rule should be made that any paper served on the counsel for the opposite side must bear the endorsement that it is a true copy of the original filed in the Court and it should be signed by the counsel or the party. The original rejoinder found among the records of the ARC bears a rubber stamp on each page with the date being smudged completely. From that stamp nobody can say that it was filed in Court on 11.10.85. We accepted the date to be the date of filing because of the entry made by the ARC in his notes. We have however a doubt whether the document which is now on files was the same as the one which was filed before the ARC. The reason for entertaining such a doubt is that while the date stamp in other documents filed in that Court are clear and legible, the date stamp on this document is alone smudged. In the place of the date somebody has written in ink a figure which looks like 11. The Presiding Officer should take care to see that any paper filed in Court bears the date stamp clearly on every page and he should put his initials and date on each page clearly. Such a procedure would ensure to some extent that papers filed in Court are not tampered with. We have referred to the application for additional evidence filed by the tenant before the Rent Tribunal and the fact that one of the documents said to have been filed along with the application was not filed at that time and interpolated into the records much later. We also find that the application was not given a separate number. The rejection of the application was made part of the order in the main appeal. It would have been better if the application had been given a separate number and an order had been passed thereon separately. But that is not a matter of grave concern. What is to be noted is that in the application, the documents sought to be filed as additional evidence were described vaguely in Paragraph 5 as photo copies of the passport and the ticket. It is absolutely necessary that every application for permission to file additional evidence should contain a list of documents giving full particulars thereof such as date, parties thereto and description. Apart from that each document should also bear a certificate of endorsement made by the counsel or the party that the said document was the one referred to in the affidavit or application of the party. The application must also specify the number of pages of each document filed therewith. Whenever such applications are filed in pending matters, the copies thereof and copies of the documents sought to be filed as additional evidence should be served on the other side after being duly certified as true copies by the applicant or his counsel. Appropriate rules have to be framed in this regard also. (Paras 37 to 40)
       There are several others matters relating to practice and procedure which require proper attention. In so far as the Act is concerned, Section 56 enables the Central Government to make rules. Rule 23 of the rules framed under the Act provides that the controller and the Rent Control Tribunal are as far as possible be guided by the provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is absolutely necessary for the Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal to see that the provisions of the Statute, rules and the Code of Civil Procedure are strictly complied with in all the proceedings before them. We are informed that even for the civil courts in the Union Territory of Delhi, no rules of practice have been framed by the High Court. It is a sad state of affairs that the High Court of Delhi has not given its thought in this regard. It is high time that the High Court framed appropriate rules of practice to be observed by all the courts in the territory subordinate to it. We direct the Registry to send copies of this judgment to the concerned department of the Central Government as well as the High Court of Delhi so that appropriate rules may be made by them respectively with regard to the proceedings under Delhi Rent Control Act and the proceedings in the regular civil courts. We request the High Court to give its immediate attention to this matter and also cause periodic inspection of the courts subordinate to it and issue such circulars as may be necessary in order to plug the loopholes then and there. (Paras 41 & 42)

Judgment

Srinivasan, J.-The appellant became a tenant under Amar Singh the grand-father of the present respondents with respect to premises situate in E-222, East of Kailash on 29.6.1979. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as tenant and landlord herein. A joint application was filed before the Additional Rent Controller (for short A.R.C.), Delhi under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 hereinafter referred to as the Act for permission to let the premises for a limited period of two years. The same was granted on 3.7.1979. On 29.6.1981 another joint application under Section 21 was filed for permission to create a limited tenancy for two years. On 30.6.1981 statements of landlord and tenant were recorded by the A.R.C.. Permission was granted for a period of three years. On the expiry of that period the tenant did not vacate the premises and the landlord filed an application for execution. Notice was issued to the tenant returnable on 25.1.85. As he was not served, fresh notice was ordered for 19.4.85. On that day, the tenant did not appear though served on 24.3.85. The court directed issue of warrant but in the afternoon, the tenant appeared before court and filed his objections. An application was also moved for cancellation of warrant of possession. By order dated 29.4.85 the ARC recorded that there was no justification for issuance of ex-parte stay to stop the execution of warrant of possession and ordered notice of the application to the counsel for the landlord. The warrant could not be executed and when the matter came up before court on 31.5.85 the landlord was given time to file reply to the objections filed by the tenant till 2.8.85. On the latter date, the landlord filed his reply, and the appellant was given time to file re-joinder till 6.9.1985. No re-joinder was filed on 6.9.1985 and the case was fixed for hearing arguments on the objections and posted to 11.10.1985. On that date, the tenant filed replication and served a copy thereof on the landlord’s counsel. Arguments were heard and the matter was posted for orders to 18.10.1985. The A.R.C. passed an order on 18.10.1985 that the objections filed by the tenant could not be dismissed without recording the evidence and granted permission to the tenant to lead evidence in support of the objection. The landlord was permitted to repudiate the evidence led by the tenant. The dis-possession of the tenant was stayed till the decision on the objections.

2. In the objections filed by the tenant it was contended that the grant of permission under Section 21 of the Act on 30.6.1981 was wholly vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation and it was contrary to the provisions of Section 21 of the Act. It was alleged that the landlord had misled and misrepresented the relevant facts at the time of grant of permission that his family will shift from Amritsar where he was residing but his family was never living at Amritsar and the premises in question were not required by the landlord for his residence after the expiry of three years as alleged by him. It was also stated that the landlord owned a property bearing number E-3, East of Kailash, where he and his family were living throughout. It was further stated that the tenant was in occupation of premises since 29.6.1979 and had continued and remained in possession of the premises in question and he had never vacated the same since that date. It was alleged that the landlord wanted to enhance the rent to Rs. 3000/- per mensem which the tenant had refused to agree and therefore and petition for execution was filed. It was also stated that the order under Section 21 was liable to be set aside and quashed and no warrant of possession in respect of the premises in question could be issued against the tenant. No plea was raised then by him that he was not present in the court of ARC on 30.6.81.

3. In the reply filed by the landlord, it was contended that the tenant being a signatory to the perm

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1998 Supreme(SC) 916

Cases Referred (5)