High Court Of Delhi
TEJENDER TEWARIARI - Appellant
Versus
SUBHASH LATA KUMAR - Respondent
SECOND APPEAL 184 of 1983
Decided On : 08/23/1985
Delhi Rent Control Act - Section 21 — Condition for — If the tenants are already in possession of tenanted premises in their own rights, the possession for limited tenancy is not warranted and if granted would be vitiated by the fraud practiced upon the court.
Transfer of Property Act - Section 111-F — "Implied surrender" — No implied surrender can arise on the acceptance by the tenant of a new lease which is void.
( 2 ) LIKEWISE, the respondent-landlady sought permission in miscellaneous application No. 97/76 to let the first floor of the rear portion of the aforesaid property N-57, Panchsheel Park, comprising four bed rooms with attached bath and other facilities at a monthly rent of Rs. 850. 00 with effect from the same date viz. 25th February, 1976 for a period of two years only. She stated therein loo that presently she was not in need of the said premises and she intended to resume her residence in Delhi after two years. After recording the statements of both the appellant and the respondent on 27th February, 1976. the Additional Rent Controller granted permission to let the premises for a limited period of two years with effect from 1st March, 1976.
( 3 ) ON the expiry of the stipulated period of tenancy viz. two years, in both these cases the respondent-landlady moved two separate execution applications in July 1978 for being put back into possession of the demised premises. Notice thereof was issued to both the appellants and they filed separate objections in the two execution applications. However, the same were couched in identical language and raised a common defence. Their primary defence was that the entire rear portion of the property N-57, Panchsheel Park, consisting of the ground floor, first floor and the second floor had been let out by the respondent with effect from 10th December, 1975 to both of them jointly at Rs. 1700. 00 per mensem and they paid a sum of Rs. 1700. 00 to her by way of security deposit. Thereafter they paid Rs. 5100. 00 as rent for three months in advance with effect from 10th December. 1975 by means of a cheque drawn in favour of the respondent. The said cheque was duly encashed. They averred that thus an oral agreement of tenancy came into being between the parties and the entire premises, amended to above, were let out to them for a period of two years ending 31st December, 1977. They further contended that in February 1976 the respondent-landlady told them t
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.