Back
High Court Of Delhi
D.N.VOHRA - Appellant
Versus
AGYA WANTI - Respondent
SECOND APPEAL 106 of 1980
Decided On : 07/18/1980
LANDLORD TENANT - DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958 - SECTION 21 - VALIDITY OF PERMISSION FOR LIMITED TENANCY - CONDITIONS - REQUIREMENTS - INTERPRETATION - FRAUD - EVIDENCE - BURDEN OF PROOF - FINDING OF FACT - APPEAL.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a tenant, challenged the validity of a permission granted under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which allowed the landlord to let out the premises for a fixed period of 22 months. The appellant claimed that he was already a regular tenant and that the permission was obtained by fraud and suppression of material facts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the landlord had not disclosed to the Rent Controller that the appellant was already a tenant and in occupation of the premises. This was an active concealment of a material fact within the knowledge of the landlord. The court also found that the appellant was in difficulty and had no alternative but to accept the demand of the landlord and go through the formalities of making a statement before the Controller and thereafter execute the lease deed. The court held that the permission granted under Section 21 of the Act was invalid and set aside the orders of the Additional Controller and Rent Control Tribunal.
Issues: 1. Whether the permission granted under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, was valid. 2. Whether the landlord had disclosed to the Rent Controller that the appellant was already a tenant and in occupation of the premises. 3. Whether the appellant was in difficulty and had no alternative but to accept the demand of the landlord and go through the formalities of making a statement before the Controller and thereafter execute the lease deed.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the conditions for the grant of a valid permission under Section 21 of the Act were not fulfilled when the application was made by the landlord. 2. The court found that the landlord had not disclosed to the Rent Controller that the appellant was already a tenant and in occupation of the premises. This was an active concealment of a material fact within the knowledge of the landlord. 3. The court held that the appellant was in difficulty and had no alternative but to accept the demand of the landlord and go through the formalities of making a statement before the Controller and thereafter execute the lease deed.
Final Decision: The appeal was accepted, the orders of the Additional Controller and Rent Control Tribunal were set aside, and the execution application of the landlord in pursuance of the permission dated 15/07/1976 under Section 21 of the Act was dismissed. It was further held that the permission granted on 15/07/1976 was invalid. The landlord was also directed to pay the appellant's costs throughout.
( 1 ) SMT. Agyawanti, respondent is the landlord ofquarter No. 3 Block No. 1, Lajpat Nagar-1, New Delhi. She let out tworooms, Verandah, Kitchen, bath room and open space on ground floor tod. N. Vohra, Appellant for a fixed period of 22 months with effect from 17/07/1976 for residential purposes after obtaing permission dated 15/07/1976of the Controller, under section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act ). The appellant executed the lease deed dated 19/07/1976 in terms of the permission but did not vacate the premises onthe expiry of the said period. An execution application was filed for obtainingpossession. The appellant filed objections which were dismissed on 12/10/1979 and his appeal was also dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal videorder dated 21/02/1980. We has come up in second appeal under s. 39of the Act.
( 2 ) IN his objections the appellant pleads that in October 1969 theentire ground floor consisting of three rooms, kitchen, latrine and bath roomwas let out to him at a monthly rent of Rs. 260/. In 1972 the husband ofthe respondent was seriously ill and he was not in a position to climb thestairs. On respondent s request he handed over one room out of the threerooms to her temporarily. The rent was reduced to Rs. 250. 00 per month. Therespondent s husband thereafter died but the said room was never restored. He alleges that the respondent issued only two rent receipts under hersignatures without showing therein either the rate of rent or the amountreceived by her for two months, November and December 1969. He furtheralleges that the respondent to avoid payment of house tax did not mentionthe rate of rent in the said two receipts. She did not issue any receipt thereafter. In July, 1976 the respondent threatened that she would recover theentire arrears of rent since 1969 as the appellant was not in possession ofreceipts showing payment of rent. The appellant was, therefore, prevailedupon to take the premises already in his possession for a fixed period of 22months under Section 21 of the Act and was assured that she would treathim as a regular tenant even after tenancy under Section 21 of the Act. (Under these circumstances, the respondent made an application undersection 21 of the Act to the Controller alleging that she was the owner ofproperty in suit, that at that time she did not require the ground floor portionexcept one room and that she wanted to let out the same to the appellant forthe limited and fixed period of 22 months. The statements of the appellant andthe respondent were recorded by the Additional Controller on 15/07/1976. The respondent (landlady) stated as under :-
"i do not require the premises for a period of 22 months from 17/07/1976. The purpose of letting shall be residential only andthe premises is shown on site plan Exhibit A 1 in red. The proposedagreement is Exhibit A2.
THE appellant stated as follows :-
"i have heard the statement of the petitioner and I accept it ascorrect. I have no objection. I shall vacate the premises after expiryof 22 months with effect from 17/07/1976. The purpose of lettingshall be residential. "
THE Additional Controller passed the following order on 15/07/1976:-
"this is an application filed under Section 21 of the Act for permission to create a limited tenancy for a period of 22 months from 17/07/1976. The purpose of letting shall be residential only andthe premises is shown in site plan Exhibit A I in red. The proposedagreement is Exhibit A2. From the perusal of the statements of theparties, I am satisfied that as at present the petitioner does not requirethe premises. Therefore, limited tenancy is allowed to be created for a period of 22 months from 17/07/1976. "
( 4 ) THE appellant further pleads that the facts relating to his possessionof the premises as tenant were suppressed and fraud was played on him bythe respondent, that provisions of Section 21 of the Act were notcomplied with as he was already a regular
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
