MOHANSTNGH Vs. LATEAMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant became a tenant under Amar Singh the grand-father of the present respondents with respect to premises situate in E-222, East of Kailash on 29-6-1979. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as tenant and landlord herein. A joint application was filed before the Additional Rent Controller (for short A.R.C.), Delhi under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 hereinafter referred to as the Act for permission to let the premises for a limited period of two years. The same was granted on 3-7-1979. On 29-6-1981 another joint application under Section 21 was filed for permission to create a limited tenancy for two years. On 30-6-1981 statements of landlord and tenant were recorded by the A.R.C. Permission was granted for a period of three years. On the expiry of that period the tenant did not vacate the premises and the landlord filed an application for execution. Notice was issued to the tenant returnable on 25-1-85. As he was not served, fresh notice was ordered for 19-4-85. On that day, the tenant did not appear though served on 24-3-85. The Court directed issue of warrant but in the afternoon, the tenant appeared before Court and filed his objections. An application was also moved for cancellation of warrant of possession. By order dated 29-4-85 the A.R.C. recorded that there was no Justification for issuance of ex parte stay to stop the execution of warrant of possession and ordered notice of the application to the council for the landlord. The warrant could not be executed and when the matter came up before Court on 31-5-85 the landlord was given time to file reply to the objections filed by the tenant till 2-8-85. On the latter date, the landlord filed his reply, and the appellant was given time to file re-joinder till 6-9-1985. No re-joinder was filed on 6-9-1985 and the case was fixed for hearing arguments on the objections and posted to 11-10-1985. On that date, the tenant filed replication and served a copy thereof on the landlord's counsel. Arguments were heard and the matter was posted for orders to 18-10-1985. The A.R.C. passed an order on 18-10-1985 that the objections filed by the tenant could not be dismissed without recording the evidence and granted permission to the tenant to lead evidence in support of the objection. The landlord was permitted to repudiate the evidence led by the tenant. The dispossession of the tenant was stayed till the decision on the objections.

(2.) In the objections filed by the tenant it was contended that the grant of permission under Section 21 of the Act on 30-6-1981 was wholly vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation and it was contrary to the provisions of Section 21 of the Act. It was alleged that the landlord had misled and misrepresented the relevant facts at the time of grant of permission that his family will shift from Amritsar where he was residing but his family was never living at Amritsar and the premises in question were not required by the landlord for his residence after the expiry of three years as alleged by him. It was also stated that the landlord owned a property bearing number E-3, East of Kailash, where he and his family were living throughout. It was further stated that the tenant was in occupation of premises since 29-6-1979 and had continued and remained in possession of the premises in question and he had never vacated the same since that date. It was alleged that the landlord wanted to enhance the rent to Rs. 3000/- per mensem which the tenant had refused to agree and therefore the petition for execution was filed. It was also stated that the order under Section 21 was liable to be set aside and quashed and no warrant of possession in respect of the premises in question could be issued against the tenant. No plea was raised then by him that he was not present in the Court of A.R.C. on 30-6-81.

(3.) In the reply filed by the landlord, it was contended that the tenant being a signatory to the permission granted by the A.R.C. and a party to the proceedings could not challenge the permission so granted by the Court. The allegations of fraud and misrepresentation were denied. It was also stated that the landlord was not living in E-3, East of Kailash as alleged by the tenant.