HATDIT SINGH CHADHA Vs. JAGTAR SINGH GORVER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shakespeare lamented that being involved in a law suit is like being ground to bits in aslow mill; it is being roasted at a slow fire; it is being stung to death by single bees; it is being drowned bydrops; it is going mad by grains. I have every reason to believe that even now in these dying days of the 20th century the feeling can be no different.

(2.) The story of this long drawn legal battle revolves around F-33, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi and dates back to the year 1976. It was on that date that the petitioner had let out the premises to the respondent for aperiod of 359 days afterobtaining permission of the Controller under section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter called the Act). Actually, the respondent was no stranger to the premises. He had been initially let out the premises for a period of three years and thereafter twice for 359 days each.Those lettings too were under section 21 of the Act. The appellant claims that the respondent vacated the premises on August 31, 1976 and took up residence at Fateh Nagar and on November 18, 1976 he was inducted again into the premises after obtaining permission on the same day under section 21 of the Act. The respondent, however, alleges that actually he had never vacated the premises and that while he was still in occupation of the same a fresh application under section 21 was moved on November 18, 1976 and permission obtained. I will be coming back to this part of the story again. Let me first complete the narrative.It so happened that after the expiry of 359 days the respondent did not vacate the premises. Faced with this situation, the appellant-landlord filed an execution application on December 22, 1977. On February 17, 1978 the respondent filed his objections but the Controller dismissed the same,on December 16, 1978. The respondent then filed an Appeal before the Tribunal who dismissed the same on January 5, 1979. When approached, the High Court too refused to interfere. This made the respondent go to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court remanded the matter back. Since the order of the Supreme Court was at the centre-stage of the tenuous arguments addressed before me, I may for a moment, interrupt the onwards journey and reproduce the same. It runs as under:-

(3.) continue again with the narrative, consequent upon the remand the matter again went back to the Controller who after recording the evidence of the parties on the objections raised, once again dismissed them. Aggrieved by that order the tenant knocked at the door of the Tribunal who responded and allowed the appeal. It was then the turn of the landlord to feel aggrieved. Hence this appeal by him.