RAJ KUMARI WALIA Vs. P N PREMANANDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is landlady's petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, feeling aggrieved by an order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal dated 15th November 1990, whereby respondent/tenant's appeal was allowed. The controversy now falls in a very narrow compass, but before that facts are required to be -noticed.

(2.) The petitioner let-out premises bearing No. 61-A, DDA Flats, Prashad Nagar, New Delhi to the respondents for limited period of three years with effect from 25th September 1982 afterobtaining permission of the Rent Controller under section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act) on 24th September, 1982. The period of limited tenancy expired on 24th September 1985, and after waiting for the premises to be vacated, the landlady filed an execution application on the last day available to her, namely, on 24th September 1985, seeking vacant possession of the premises.

(3.) The record reveals that notice was ordered to be issued to respondent but he could not be served. Thereafter the petitioner's counsel applied for warrants of possession straightaway without notice to the tenant, placing reliance on a judgment of this Court reported as 1982 Rajdhani Law Reporter 442, N.S. Partha Sarthy V. Padmini Devi. It is only after warrants of possession were issued that the respondent tenant came forward and filed objections to the excution and issuance of warrants of possession. In the objections filed on 30th November 1987, a number of objections were taken alleging fraud having been committed by the landlady while obtaining permission, as well as suppression and concealment of facts and other related pleas. Another plea taken was that on the expiry of period of limited tenancy on 24th September 1985, the respondent had been accepted as a regular tenant by the landlady on a monthly rent of Rs. 825.00 which he alleged to have been paying since after the expiry of the limited tenancy.