Judgment

TULZAPURKAR, J. :- The only question raised in this appeal is whether a warrant for recovery of possession can be issued in favour of a landlord without notice to the tenant under S. 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act)?

2. A tenancy for a limited period of three years commencing from 1-6-1979 in respect of a house at 34, Paschimi Marg, Vasant Vihar. New Delhi at a monthly rental of Rs. 5000/- was created by the appellant in favour of the first respondent-Company for the residence of its Chairman, Shri C. L. Sachdev after obtaining the requisite permission under S. 21 of the Act.

3. It appears that the said house was constructed by the appellant for his own use and occupation but having taken a loan for its construction he was desirous of clearing the said loan before occupying the same and he, therefore, offered in writing the tenancy for a limited period of three years to the first respondent-company, and since the offer was accepted a joint application seeking permission of the Rent Controller under S. 21 for creating such limited tenancy was made by the parties on 9th May, 1979 in which it was expressly stated that three years tenancy was being created as the appellant had to clear the construction loan; the proposed lease-deed containing the terms and conditions of letting was annexed thereto clause 2 whereof expressly recited that the premises shall be used by the respondent Company only for the residential purposes of its Chairman, Shri C. L. Sachdev (second respondent). On 10th May 1979 the parties appeared before the Rent Controller and their statements were recorded; the second respondent stated on oath that the premises were being taken by the respondent company for the residence of its Chairman (i.e. himself) on a monthly rental of Rs. 5000/-for three years with effect from 1-6-1979 and the lessee shall vacate the premises on the expiry of that period. By his order passed on that very day the Rent Controller, on being satisfied that the requirements of S. 21 had been fulfilled, granted permission for the creation of the tenancy for the said period which was to expire on 31st May 1982. The appellant was desirous of getting possession of the house at the expiry of the period but before applying for possession under S. 21 of the Act, by two registered letters one dated 1st March 1982 and the other dated 5th May 1982 he called upon the respondents to hand over vacant possession of the leased premises on the due date as the period permitted by the Rent Controller was coming to an end and also because he required the premises for himself. There was no reply to any of these letters nor was possession handed over and, therefore, the appellant filed application under S. 21 for recovery of possession before the Rent Controller on 1st July 1982; the application was directed to be registered on that day and the appellant was directed to file a certified copy of the plan on 16-7-1982; the appellant, however, filed the certified copy of the plan on the 6th July 1982; the Rent Controller, therefore cancelled the date 16th July 1982 fixed for filing the plan, took on record certified copy of the plan and issued warrant of possession in favour of the appellant. On 9-7-1982 the appellant took possession of the house through the bailiff and started residing therein with his family members.

4. On 14th July 1982 the respondents filed a writ petition (C.M. No. (Main) 174 of 1982) (reported in AIR 1983 Delhi 167) in the Delhi High Court under Art 227 of the Constitution seeking to quash the warrant of possession issued by the Rent Controller on 6-7-1982 and the further proceedings taken in pursuance thereof on two grounds : (a) that the initial order dated 10th May 1979 granting permission to create the limited tenancy was vitiated by fraud practised by the appellant inasmuch as he had suppressed the fact that an earlier application for such permission has been declined on the ground that premi