R. N. Aggarwal, J.

( 1 ) THE appellant R. N. Mathur took on rent under section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act the premises flat No. D-II/b, D. D. A. flats, Munirka, New Delhi, belonging to Shri Pratap Pawar for residential purposes for a period of two years commencing from 22nd July 1978. The ground stated in the application for permission to create tenancy for a fixed period was that the landlord is on a foreign assignment/and posted as Cultural Officer, High Commission of India, Port of Spain, Trinidad, and Tabago, West Indies, and was expected to return to India on the expiry of his assignment after a period of two years and he would thereafter require the premises for his personal residence. The said application was made on behalf of the landlord by his attorney Miss Raj Kumari Anita Singh. The Rent Controller recorded the statement of the parties and accorded permission to the landlord to let out his flat No. D-II-B/, D. D. A. flats to Shri R. N. Mathur for residential purposes for a limited period of two years with effect from 21st July 1978.

( 2 ) ON 26th August 1980 the landlord through his attorney filed an application for warrants for possession of the flat No. D-II/b D. D. A. flats. It was stated in the application that although the period of two years had expired the tenant had not vacatethe premises The landlord stated in the application that he has been posted back from his foreign assignment and is returning to India any time in September.

( 3 ) THE tenant filed objections against the said application. The main plea of the tenant was that the premises were let out to him from 15th June 1978 and that the permission obtained under section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act for letting out the premises with effect from 22nd July 1978 was a fraud on the provisions of the Rent Control Act. The tenant further pleaded that the landlord does not require the premises and he was posted out of India and that there is no definite period of his return from abroad.

( 4 ) THE landlord in reply to the objection petition denied that the premises were let out to the tenant on 15th June 1978. The landlord further pleaded that the permission under section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act was a proper and legal exercise of jurisdiction. The landlord further pleaded that on the expiry of his assignment as Cultural Officer in the High Commission of India at Trinidad he had come back to India and that as the tenant did not vacate the premises he along with his family was forced to live with his friends for 5 to 6 months and that he again went out on another assignment and he had after completing the second assignment returned to India and he required the premises badly for his own occupation.

( 5 ) THE tenant in his rejoinder reiterated the allegations made in the objection petition.

( 6 ) THE Additional Rent Controller dismissed the objections of the tenant and directed that warrants of possession be issued.

( 7 ) AGAINST the aforesaid order the tenant went in appeal to the Rent Control Tribunal.

( 8 ) THE main contention before the Tribunal was that the permission granted under section 21 of the Rent Control Act for creating tenancy for a fixed period was a fraud on the provisions of the Rent Control Act. The ground urged was that the property was let out to the tenant on 15th June 1978 and, therefore the question of granting permission to create tenancy for a fixed period on 22nd July 1978 did not arise. It was also contended that the permission was obtained by stating wrong facts. The learned Tribunal held that even if it is assumed that the property was let out to the tenant on 15th June 1978 on the execution of a fresh lease under section 21 of the Rent Control Act it would be deemed that the earlier tenancy had beensurrendered and a fresh lease had come into existence. The learned Tribunal rejected the contention of the tenant that any fraud had been practised in obtaining the lease under section 21 of the Rent Control Act.

( 9

Click Here to Read the rest of this document