GOPI KRISHNA BUBNA Vs. ARJUN GAURAV TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Second Appeal brought by Sh.Gopi Krishna challenging the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated April 21, 1992 by which he had dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated March 21, 1992 by which he had dismissed the objections filed by the appellant in proceedings brought by the respondent for having recovery of possession of the premises in question from the appellant under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

(2.) Facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. On February 9, 1981, a petition under Section 21 of the Act was filed by Arjun Gaurav Trust through its trustee Sh. Harjit Singh Kochhar in which a prayer was made that the land lord/ owner be permitted to create limited tenancy in respect of Chateu 43, Second Floor, Oberoi Apartments, 2, Shamnath Marg, Delhi which comprised of two bed-rooms, attached bathroom, balcony, one drawing-cum-dining room and a servant room with attached bath and open terrace, as shown in the map filed alongwith the petition in favour of the appellant mentioning that the applicant was living in a joint family (H.U.F) and after three years, he would require the said accommodation for his own residential use and the rent settled was Rs.1,700.00 per mensem exclusive of electricity and water charges.

(3.) Alongwith the application, affidavit of Harjit Singh Kochhar was filed wherein he mentioned that he is the trustee of the said Trustand that earlier the said premises were let out to one Shri Chander Mohan after taking permission under Section 21 of the Act vide order dated August23, 1979 from the Court of Additional Controllerand a tenancy of five years was created w.e.f. August 23,1979 which was to expire on August 22, 1984 but unfortunately Chander Mohan had expired prior to expiry of the said period and premises had fallen vacant and thus, the petitioner was creating fresh tenancy in favour of the appellant for the remaining period of three years as the intention of the petitioner, right from the beginning, was to shift to the said premises after expiry of the aforesaid period of five years and it was again mentioned that the petitioner was staying in the joint family and would be shifting to the premises in question after the expiry of the fixed period of tenancy.