D N VOHRA Vs. AGYA WANTI

JUDGEMENT

(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 :-

(3.) 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 tenant, that his tenancystill continued, that on account of his non-possession of rent receiptsfor a period of more than six years, he was under a fear that therespondent might institute a false suit for recovery of arrears of rent againsthim, although upto date rent had already been paid by him. He, therefore,alleges that he, as desired by the respondent, went through the exercise ofmaking a statement before the Controller and getting the permission underSection 21 of the Act and executed lease deed dated 19/07/1976 He allegesthat his possession of suit premises since 1969 is proved from ration card,voter list, electricity and water bills, T.V. Licence, radio licence, insurancepremium receipts. A notice was sent by him to the respondent informingthat the tenancy under Section 21 of the Act was irregular, illegal andinvalid and that the same was not in accordance with the provisions ofSection 21 of the Act and that the entire responsibility for suppressing thematerial facts and practising fraud on him and on the court rested with therespondent. He admits that subsequent to the permission under Section 21of the Act the respondent issued receipts for the period 17/07/1976 toDecember 1977 for rents paid by him. The execution of the writing dated 19/07/1976 in pursuance of the permission under Section 21 of the Actis admitted but the same is alleged to be void and illegal and not bindingupon him because the same was obtained under the circumstances alreadymentioned.