NARENDER KUMAR KHANNA Vs. JAGDISH PRAKASH KATHURIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, Shri Narender Kumar Khanna, is the owner/landlord of premises No.D-241, Ashok Vihar, Phase I, Delhi; ground floor whereof was let out to the respondent, Shri Jagdish Pershad Kathuria, after obtaining permission of the Rent Controller under section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the 'Act'), by order dated 6/7/1978, to create limited tenancy for a period of three years. It is common case of the parties that the tenancy commenced with effect from the date of the order. Draft of the proposed lease deed was annexed with the application under section 21, but no separate lease deed <PG>229</PG> was executed subsequently, and respondent/tenant is in occupapation on the same terms and conditions, as contained in the draft lease deed, annexed with the application under section 21.

(2.) The aforesaid period of three years expired with effect from 5/7/81. but the respondent did not hand over vacant possession of the premises to the appellant, and eventually during available period of six months, the landlord sought recovery of possession by moving an execution application, which was filed incourt opn 18/12/81.The respondent instead of handing over possession, filed objections before the Additional Rent Controller, who was seized of the execution application on 5/11/82. The objections taken were that there was no real sanction under section 21 of the Act, and that the entire proceedings were a make believe exercise vitiated by deceipt and collusion, and that the landlord committed fraud on the court, while applying for grant of permission for letting for a limited period, and that the reasons stated in the said application were not correct, and the Rent Controller instead of satisfying himself about the genuineness or authenticity of the reasons stated in the application, allowed the application, and it was a case where permission was granted in a mechanical way, without application of judicial mind, and without satisfying about the existence of the requirements, as laid down in the statute.

(3.) In addition, technical objections were taken to the effect that the provisions of section 21 were not available in the case for the reason that Delhi Rent Control Act had not been made applicable to Ashok Vihar. in which area the property was situate, and further that the letting to respondent by means of this permission under section 21 was invalid for the reason that the respondent was alreay in possession of the properly as a tenant, and rent was being paid @ Rs.575.00 p.m., and that the limited tenancy was created by pretence, and the rent was wrongly shown as Rs.500.00 p.m., and further that the agreement of tenancy was not enforceable, for the reason that lease deed was not registered. It was also pleaded that the application under section 21 and the subsequent execution application were a subterfuge, resorted to by the landlord to pressurise the respondent/tenant to increase rent.