Santosh Duggal, J. (Oral ).

( 1 ) THIS is landlady s petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, feeling aggrieved by an order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal dated 15th November 1990, whereby respondent/tenant s appeal was allowed. The controversy now falls in a very narrow compass, but before that facts are required to be -noticed.

( 2 ) THE petitioner let-out premises bearing No. 61-A, DDA Flats, Prashad Nagar, New Delhi to the respondents for limited period of three years with effect from 25th September 1982 afterobtaining permission of the Rent Controller under section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short the Act) on 24th September, 1982. The period of limited tenancy expired on 24th September 1985, and after waiting for the premises to be vacated, the landlady filed an execution application on the last day available to her, namely, on 24th September 1985, seeking vacant possession of the premises.

( 3 ) THE record reveals that notice was ordered to be issued to respondent but he could not be served. Thereafter the petitioner s counsel REFERRED TO for warrants of possession straightaway without notice to the tenant, placing reliance on a judgment of this Court reported as 1982 Rajdhani Law Reporter 442, N. S. Partha Sarthy V. Padmini Devi. It is only after warrants of possession were issued that the respondent tenant came forward and filed objections to the excution and issuance of warrants of possession. In the objections filed on 30th November 1987, a number of objections were taken alleging fraud having been committed by the landlady while obtaining permission, as well as suppression and concealment of facts and other related pleas. Another plea taken was that on the expiry of period of limited tenancy on 24th September 1985, the respondent had been accepted as a regular tenant by the landlady on a monthly rent of Rs. 825. 00 which he alleged to have been paying since after the expiry of the limited tenancy.

( 4 ) THE learned Addl. Rent Controller seized of the matter at the time, examined the documents which came on record as also reply of the landlady and finding that the objections did not merit any consideration, dismissed the same by order dated 9th March, 1990. .

( 5 ) ON appeal being filed before the Rent Control Tribunal, all objectons, based on allegation of fraud, concealment etc. at the time of passing of the order under section 21 of the Act, were given up and the only plea pressed was that of creation of a fresh tenancy after expiry of limited tenancy. The Rent Control Tribunal had felt it to be a case which should have been put to evidence, taking note of one cheque which was issued in July 1987 for a sum of Rs. 825. 00 by the respondent in favour of the petitioner which, according to the respondent, was the rate of rent agreed between the parties after the expiry of the limited period tenancy, and that the controversy as to whether the rate of rent after 24. 9. 1985 was Rs. 700. 00 or Rs. 825/.- p. m. be decided only by evidence, and in this view of the matter, it was felt by the learned Tribunal that summary dismissal of the objections was not justified.

( 6 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parities and gone through the records. The only plea required to be examined is as to whether there was a fresh tenancy in favour of the respondent, after the expiry of period of limited tenancy. No terms of the agreement are spelt outexcept for the allegation that there was an increase of rent from Rs. 700. 00 to Rs. 825. 00 p. m. which the respondent asserted to have been paying ever since. Apart from the fact that mere increase of rent, without anything else, does. not give rise to the presumption of novation of contract, resulting in creation of fresh tenancy; in this particular case when the earlier tenancy was a short duration tenancy, governed by the provisions of section 21 of the Act, -creation of an oral tenancy thereafter, has to be made out on very plausible

Click Here to Read the rest of this document