SUBHASH KUMAR LATA Vs. R C CHHIBA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the appeals by special leave have been filed by the same appellant and are directed against a common judgment delivered by the High Court of Delhi in two connected second appeals dismissing the Execution Applications filed by the appellant against the respondents in the two appeals under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short 'the Act' hereinafter). The Execution Applications were dismissed by the Rent Controller but on appeal by the appellant herein they were allowed and the tenant/respondent in each of the applications was directed to surrender possession in a month' s time. The High Court, however, reversed the order of the Rent Control Tribunal in the Second Appeals preferred by the respondents and dismissed the Execution Applications. The aggrieved appellant has preferred these appeals.

(2.) It was the appellant's case that she had obtained the sanction of the Additional Rent Controller, New Delhi on 26/27-2-76 and thereafter leased out specified portions in a her property bearing No. N-57, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi to the respondents under separate leases for a limited period of two years commencing from 1-3-76. According to her the rear portion in the ground floor consisting of a drawing-cum-dining hall, a bed room, a bath room and other facilities were leased out to the tenant Maj. R. C. Chhiba (respondent in C.A. No. 1594 of 1986) and the first and second floors comprising of four bed rooms with attached bath rooms and other facilities were leased out to the tenant Tajinder Tewari (respondent in C. A. 1595 of 1986) and each of the tenants was to pay a sum of Rs. 850/- per month for the respective portions leased out to them. On the ground the two respondents failed to vacate the portions leased out to them at the end of the two years' period, the appellant filed Execution Applications under Section 21 of the Act to seek an order from the Rent Controller for delivery of possession of the leased portions.

(3.) The common defence put forth by the two respondents was that there was a single tenancy and not two tenancies and they were jointly inducted into possession of the entire leased portion even in the month of December 1975 under an oral lease and as such, their tenancy was not referable to the sanction given by the Rent Controller on 26/27-2-76. To substantiate their contentions, the respondents placed reliance on the payment of a sum of Rs. 1,700/- by them on 10-12-1975 as security deposit and the payment of a sum of Rs. 5,100/- by means of cheque on 29-12-1975 towards advance payment of rent for three months. They alleged that in spite of their having been inducted into possession in December 1975 itself, the respondent misled them by saying that the oral tenancy required formal sanction by the Rent Controller and hence they should appear before the Rent Controller and have their statements recorded by him. It was only after giving their statements before the Rent Controller they suspected the motives of the appellant and hence they refused to execute lease deeds in the month of March 1976 as desired by the appellant.