MELA RAM GUGNANI Vs. GOENKA DAL MILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi dated 22nd August 1988 and of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dated 25th May 1978 whereby the application for execution filed by the appellant under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act was dismissed and the objections filed by the respondent-tenant were allowed.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows :

(3.) It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the premises were given on rent for a limited period to the respondent for the residence of its partner and since the respondent-tenant failed to deliver possession after the lease period had expired, the Additional Rent Controller ought to have ordered execution and ensured that possession is given back to the appellant. Learned counsel submitted that the Additional Rent Controller as well as the Rent Control Tribunal erred in entertaining the objections of the respondent-tenant field by him after the expiry of the lease period. Learned counsel submitted that the objections were belated and were without any basis inasmuch as there is no fraud played on the court and the Additional Rent Controller had rightly granted permission to the appellant to let out the premises for a limited period after considering all the aspects of the matter and on due consideration of the statement made by the appellant and also the statement made by the partner of the respondent-firm. Learned counsel submitted that in view of judgment of the Supreme in Yamuna Maloo v. Anand Swaroup, 1990(1) Rent L.R. 462 it is no more open to the tenant to urge that the permission granted by the Additional Rent Controller is vitiated because it was obtained by fraud if the objections were not filed during the currency of the tenancy. Learned counsel further submitted that the Additional Rent Controller as well as Rent Control Tribunal erred in holding that since the appellant had made a statement that the premises were not let out previously under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act the permission was obtained by fraud. Learned counsel submitted that the premises in dispute belong to the appellant but he had sought permission of the Additional Rent Controller to act. out the premises for a limited period because the house belonging to his son who lives in America was available to him for two years for his residence and thus he did not require the tenanted premises for these two years. Learned counsel submitted that it was specifically stated that the son of the appellant lives in America and he is likely to return after two years and the premises were thus not required by the appellant for two years. Learned counsel submitted that if the respondent-tenant wanted to raise any objection regarding any mis-statement made by the appellant landlord he ought to have done it during the currency of the lease and it is not open for him to raise this objection after the lease period had expired and after he had agreed to the Bailiff that lie will vacant the premises within one month.