BHAI MAHAVIR Vs. RADHEY RAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is brought by -the landlord against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 21/2/1987 by which he had dismissed the appeal filed by the landlord and had affirmed the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 11/2/1988 by which the application of the landlord for recovery of the possession of the premises <PG>67</PG> in question filed under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act was dismissed.

(2.) The case of the landlord in brief is that he is the owner-landlord of a doublestoreyed house bearing municipal No. 389-390, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi and he moved a petition under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act on October 12, 1978 mentioning that accommodation on the second floor of the said house of which plan was also filed was not required by the landlord for a period of five years and the respondent tenant Radhey Raman had agreed to take the said accommodation for residential purposes for the said period and the rent agreed upon was Rs.650.00 per month exclusive of water and electricity charges and the terms of the tenancy settled between the parties are recorded in the proposed lease-deed of which copy was attached with the application and thus permission was sought for creating limited tenancy under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control act.

(3.) The petition was marked to Shri R.L. Chugh Additional Rent Controller by the Rent Controller and on October 13,1978 two affidavits one of the petitioner and the other of the tenant-Radhey Raman were filed before the Additional Rent Controller and on the basis of the said affidavits the Additional Rent Controller passed the order on the same date granting the permission for creating the limited tenancy for a period of five years. Unfortu- nately the Additional Rent Controller had not recorded any proceedings apart from the order granting the limited tenancy. The petition under Section 21 was signed by the landlord and not by the tenant. The proposed lease-deed filed alongwith the petition was not signed by the parties. After the expiry of the period of five years the landlord filed the execution application on march 28, 1984 as the tenant had not vacated the premises after the expiry of the period of limited tenancy. A notice in the execution proceedings was sent to the tenant and thereafter the tenant filed the objections on August 17, 1984.