Back
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND S. NATARAJAN, JJ.
Civil Appeal No. 1148 of 1979, D/- 12-8-1987.
Joginder Kumar Butan, Appellant
Versus
R.P. Oberoi, Respondent.
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Section 21 – Landlord – Tenant - Leased Portion - Recover Possession - Government Official who has since retired from service is owner of a house - Respondent was residing in Government Quarters - It was case of respondent in execution application filed by him that pursuant to said permission granted by Rent Controller, appellant was inducted into possession of leased portion that period of lease came to an end and that as appellant failed to deliver possession as undertaken by him, he had to file application for recovering possession of leased portion - Said execution application was filed - Whether proprietary concern of appellant had become tenant - Whether thereby use of premises had been changed from residential to non-residential purpose and found contentions of appellant to be wholly devoid of merit - Whether a party has committed a fraud by abusing any legal provision – Held, In instant case there is no evidence except averment of appellant that respondent had let out leased portion on earlier occasions also for limited periods by having resort to S. 21 - However even if that statement is true there cannot be an automatic inference that permission granted by Rent Controller pertaining to lease of premises to appellant had been obtained by fraudulent means by respondent - Apart from these things there is also another factor which weakens objections raised by appellant and denudes them of force and content - He has waited for full term of lease to raise objections about respondent playing a fraud on statute - He has failed to put forth these objections within a reasonable time after permission was granted by Rent Controller to impugn order on ground of alleged fraud perpetrated by respondent - In so far as second ground is concerned, this aspect of matter also has been considered by court and dealt with in a detailed manner - After noticing decisions of High Court which have held field all along declaring that S. 21 is a complete Code by itself and that a permission granted under S. 21 would not become invalid either on account of landlord failing to disclose reasons for non-requirement of leased premises for a particular period or because of landlord and tenant not entering into an agreement in writing subsequent to grant of permission under S. 21 or on account of agreement of tenancy in writing not being subsequently registered - View taken by High Court over a number of years should normally be adhered to and not disturbed - A different view would not only introduce an element of uncertainty and confusion but it would also have effect of unsettling transactions which might have been entered into on faith of those decisions - In Delhi, transactions have been completed on basis of permission and it was never doubted that there was any requirement of any lease or any agreement subsequent to order and same required registration – Appeal Dismissed.
Judgement
NATARAJAN, J.:- This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment of the Delhi High Court dismissing the Second Appeal preferred by the appellant herein to impugn the order passed against him in execution proceedings taken under S. 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 by the Rent Controller and confirmed by the Rent Control Tribunal.
2. The respondent, a Government Official who has since retired from service is the owner of a house bearing No. A/15, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi. During the year 1976, the respondent was residing in Government Quarters situated in Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi. On June 1, 1976 the respondent and the appellant appeared before the Rent Controller and sought for permission of the Rent Controller for the rear portion of the ground floor being leased out for a period of 18 months to the appellant under S. 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Besides filing the application, the parties gave their declarations before the Rent Controller. The respondent declared that he was the owner of the premises No. Al 5, Naraina Residential Scheme, Delhi, that he did not require the rear portion of the ground floor as shown in the plan Ext. A-1 for his own use, that as such he wanted to let out the same to the appellant for residential purpose at a monthly rent of Rs. 500/- exclusive of water and electricity charges for a period of 18 months with effect from June 1, 1976 as per proposed lease deed Ex. A-2. The appellant for his part declared that he had heard the statement of the respondent and he accepted the same as correct, that he wanted to take on lease the rear portion of the ground floor of the respondents house as marked in plan Ext. A-1 for his residence on a monthly rent of Rs. 500/- exclusive of water and electricity charges for a period of 18 months with effect from June 1, 1976 as per the terms contained in the draft lease deed Ext. A-2 and further declared that he "shall vacate the premises on the expiry of the aforesaid period of 18 months." Thereupon the Rent Controller passed an order as under : -
"Having regard to the averments made in the petition and the statements of the parties recorded above, permission under S. 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is granted to the petitioner for letting out the aforesaid portion of the aforesaid house as detailed in the statement of the petitioner to the respondent for residential purpose for a period of 18 months w.e.f. today, the 1st of June, 1976. File be consigned to the record room."
3. It was the case of the respondent in the execution application filed by him that pursuant to the above said permission granted by the Rent Controller, the appellant was inducted into possession of the leased portion on June 2, 1976, that the period of lease came to an end on November 30; 1976 and that as the appellant failed to deliver possession on December 1, 1977 as undertaken by him, he had to file the application under S. 21 for recovering possession of the leased portion. The said execution application was filed on December 12, 1977.
4. The appellant contested the application and raised a threefold defence as under : -
(1) He had been inducted into possession as a tenant on May 28, 1976 itself, i e. before the Rent Controller gave permission to the lease transaction by his order dated June 1, 1976 and that as such the tenancy was not governed by the order passed under S. 21 of the Act by the Rent Controller.
(2) Though the leased portion was taken on rent for being used as a residence, the parties by mutual arrangement had agreed soon after the lease to make the proprietary concern of the appellant viz. M/s. Refaire Projects Corporation the tenant of the premises and as such the firm was the tenant and not the appellant and hence the execution application against the appellant was not maintainable.
(3) After the period of tenancy was over, a fresh tenancy was entered into governing not only the leased portion of the ground
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
