Back
High Court Of Delhi
INDIA EXPORT HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
J R.VOHRA - Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous (Main) 174 of 1982
Decided On : 11/18/1982
DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958 - SECTION 21 - WARRANT OF POSSESSION - ISSUANCE WITHOUT NOTICE TO TENANT - VALIDITY - CONTEMPT OF COURT - FRAUD ON COURT - EFFECT ON VALIDITY OF SANCTION - INQUIRY BY CONTROLLER - NECESSITY - NATURAL JUSTICE - PRINCIPLES OF - VIOLATION - POST-DECISIONAL HEARING - PERMISSIBILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, M/s. India Export House Private Limited, alleged that they took on rent the property bearing No. 34, Paschmi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, from the respondent J. R. Vohra and paid the rent for May in advance. The respondent filed a petition under section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the Act). The Additional Rent Controller declined permission because the letting was for commercial-cum-residential purposes. The respondent again filed a petition under section 21 of the Act, which was fixed before Mr. J. D. Kapur, the then Rent Controller. The respondent concealed from him the earlier rejection of a similar application and thus committed fraud on the court and obtained permission under section 21 of the Act on 10. 5. 1979. The tenancy in the aforesaid circumstances could not be considered a limited tenancy. Yet the respondent filed an execution application before the Rent Controller on 1. 7. 1982. On the same day, the Nazir was directed to report, and the Rent Controller directed it to be registered and a certified copy of the plan to be filed on 16. 7. 1982. On 6. 7. 1982, on receiving the plan, the Rent Controller canceled the date 16. 7. 1982 and directed the issue of a warrant of possession, ex parte without affording the petitioners an opportunity to show cause. A civilian force of about more than 100 persons and undesirable characters forced entry into the tenanted premises on 9. 7 1982 and manhandled and threw out the occupant and caused loss of and damage to the property of the petitioners.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the warrant of recovery of possession cannot be issued without notice to the tenant. The Controller is empowered to go behind the sanction and hold an inquiry, which can only be done if he issues a notice to show cause against the execution. The court also held that the principles of natural justice cannot be allowed to be bypassed in this matter. To issue a warrant for recovery of possession without a show cause notice and without holding an adequate inquiry into the objections, if any, of the tenant is a mistake made by the court. The mistake should be rectified by the court, and the party should be relegated to the position as it stood before.
Issues: 1. Whether a warrant of possession can be issued without notice to the tenant in a case of limited tenancy under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958? 2. Whether the principles of natural justice are violated if a warrant of possession is issued without a show cause notice and without holding an adequate inquiry into the objections, if any, of the tenant?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that a warrant of possession cannot be issued without notice to the tenant in a case of limited tenancy under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The Controller is empowered to go behind the sanction and hold an inquiry, which can only be done if he issues a notice to show cause against the execution. 2. The court held that the principles of natural justice are violated if a warrant of possession is issued without a show cause notice and without holding an adequate inquiry into the objections, if any, of the tenant.
Final Decision: The court accepted the petition, set aside the order under revision, and directed that the Rent Controller shall have the possession restored to the tenant, give him an opportunity to raise any objections and decide them in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court and then direct or refuse recovery of possession envisaged in the said section 21.
( 1 ) THE petitioners M/s. India Export House Private Limited allege that they took on rent the property bearing No. 34, Paschmi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, on 1. 5. 1979 from the respondent J. R. Vohra and paid the rent for May in advance. The respondent filed a petition under section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the Act ). But the Additional Rent Controller by an order of 2 5. 1979 declined the permission because the letting was for commercial-cum-residential purposes. The respondent again filed a petition under section 21 of the Act which was fixed before Mr. J. D. Kapur, the then Rent Controller. The respondent con- cealed from him the earlier rejection of a similar application and thus com- mitted fraud on the court and manouvred to obtained permission under section 21 of the Act on 10. 5. 1979. The tenancy in the aforesaid circumstances could not be considered a limited tenancy. Yet the respondent filed an execution application before the Rent Controller on 1. 7. 1982. On the same day the Nazir was directed to report and the Rent Controller directed it to be registered and certified copy of the plan to be filed on 16. 7. 1982. On 6. 7. 1982, on receiving the plan, the Rent Controller cancelled the date 16. 7. 1982 and directed issue of warrant of possession, ex parte without affording to the petitioners an opportunity to show cause. A civilian force of about more than 100 persons and undesirable characters forced entry into the tenanted premises on 9. 7 1982 and manhandled and threw out the occupant and caused loss of and damage to the property of the petitioners. By this petition, it is prayed that the order of the Rent Controller dated 1. 7. 1982 and 6. 7. 1982 along with the warrant of possession be quashed and a direction be issued that the petitioners are placed in possession and status quo ante as existed on 6. 7. 1982 be restored.
( 2 ) UPON CM 906/82, a local commissioner was appointed. The report of the commissioner is on record.
( 3 ) THE respondent contends that the order was an appealable order under section 38 of the Act and a second appeal is also provided on a substantial question of law. But the petitioners have chosen to short-circuit the prescribed appellate remedy by invoking the jurisdiction of this court under Aricle 227ofthe Constitution. Since the statutory remedies which were equally efficacious have not been availed of, the petition is not maintainabl.
( 4 ) THE respondents further state that the premises were let out to the petitioners for purposes of residence and no other and that too only of C. L. Sachdeva the Chairman and Director of the company. Clause 4 of the lease deed specifically mentions that the premises were being let out for residential purposes only. It was also provided in the lease deed that if the premises were not vacated on the expiry of three years period, the respondent would be entitled to receive damages at the rate of Rs. 500. 00 per day. A letter dated 2. 5. 1979 addressed to the petitioner company placed the position beyond doubt. Rent for May, 1979 was never paid. An amount of Rs. 25,000. 00 as security was advanced. Another amount of Rs. 50,000. 00 was advanced for providing additional fixtures and the said amount of Rs. 50,000. 00 was to be adjusted and has in fact been adjusted at the rate of Rs. l5,000. 00 per month out of the rents due for the month commencing 1. 6. 1969. The petitioner Sachdeva was a party to the proceedings and was present before the Rent Controller. He was also personally present in the court of the Additional Rent Controller when the first petition was withdrawn. The premises were never let out for purposes other than residential, and no fraud played on the court. Statement of Sachdeva petitioner No. 2 was also recorded, wherein he categorically admitted that the premises were taken on rent by him for a limited period of three years and for residential purposes only. The tenancy was to commence with effect from 1.
AI
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
