ATMA STEEL LIMITED Vs. HARBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Record perused. The facts giving rise to this second appeal are that on 31.7.79 permission to create a fixed term tenancy for a period of three years with respect to premises No. E-25.. Defence Colony, New Delhi under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act was granted by the Addl. Rent Controller Delhi. The tenant Atma Steel Ltd., appellant herein, did not vacate the permises after the expiry fixed of term tenancy and so the decree holder, respondent herein, filed an execution application dated 11.8.82. During the pendency of the execution application, the appellant filed objections on 14.10.1983 challenging the validity of the permission on various grounds. Those objections were, however, amended by the appellant on 15.5.88 in which an additional p!ea was taken that the decree holder has been residing in U.K. for the last ten years and is holding a British passport. The reasons for temporary non-residing namely that the respondent is going away to U.K. for further studies and he would come back after three years was a pretense and the premises were available for indefinite letting Opportunity was granted by the Addl. Rent Controller For leading evidence on the objections filed by the appellant and after considering the evidence on record and other documents, came to the conclusion that the objections were frivolous and did not have any merit and therefore, the same were dismissed vide order dated 27.3.199l.

(2.) The appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal was also dismissed by a detailed order dated 26.8.91 The learned Counsel for the appellant challenged the order of the Courts below mainly on two grounds : (i) that the respondent at the time of applying for grant of permission under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act was a foreigner and had determined citizenship of India and had acquired the citizenship of U.K. This fact was never disclosed to the Addl. Rent Controller while obtaining permission under Section 21 and as such the permission is vitiated by fraud, (ii) the right to reside and settle anywhere in India is not available to any foreigner or any person other than the citizens of India. All statutes, laws and Act are subject to the Constitution of India. In terms of the provisions of Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act read with Rule 30 read with Schedule III it is within the domain of the Central Govt. to return the finding of fact regarding the acquisition of British citizenship by the res' pondent. The Addl. Rent Controller or any other Court has no power to decide this question. The agreement of tenancy between a foreigner and an Indian citizen is void.

(3.) I am not impressed by the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant. Both the Courts below have come to a concurrent finding of fact that at the time of creation of limited tenancy under Section 21 of the Deihi Rent Control Act on 31.7.79 the decree-holder Harbir Singh was not a foreigner and that he was an Indian citizen. It was only in 1984 that the respondent acquired British citizenship. Even otherwise, the objection regarding the acquisition of British citizenship by the respondent as a ground of invalidity of permission under Section 21 could not be entertained at the execution stage because the acquisition of British Citizenship at any point of time will not effect the inherent jurisdiction of the Addl .Rent Controller to grant permission under Section 21 so long as the relationship of landlord and tenant exists. There are two facts which can only be looked into at the time of granting permission under Section 21, i.e. the availability of vacant premises which are not required by the landlord for a particular period and its letting out for residential purpose. Both these facts were in existence at the time of creation of the limited tenancy. The objections were not filed during the period of limited tenancy but they were filed after the expiry of limited period of tenancy. The Courts below came to the concurrent conclusion that the objections were not maintainable as the pleas taken in the objections were well within the knowledge of the objector and he did not file objections during the continuance of the tenancy period. This finding of fact cannot be challenged in this second appeal.