ASHOK MEHTA Vs. KAMAL NAIN KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against judgment dated 21/09/1992 of Rent Control Tribunal by which he had dismissed theappeal brought by the appellant against order dated 2/07/1992 of anAdditional Rent Controller by which the objection petition filed by theappellant in proceedings under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act hadbeen dismissed.

(2.) Facts, in brief, are that Late Harminder Singh Anand had let outthe premises in question to M/s. Hindustan Sugar Mills Limited vide aLease Deed dated April 25, 1977. The premises were used by Sri ChandMehta, predecessor in interest of the appellant. The said company is statedto have surrendered the tenancy to the landlord on 25/03/1978. However, Sri Chand Mehta continued in the premises and on 23/05/1978,Sri Chand Mehta and the landlord, Harminder Singh approached theAdditional Controller for creating a limited tenancy under Section 21 witheffect from 1/06/1978 for a period of five years. The Additional Controller granted the permission for creating such limited tenancy for a periodof five years.

(3.) On the expiry of the said period of five years, Harminder Singh,landlord had filed a petition for obtaining an order for being placed inpossession of the premises in question under Section 21 of the Act. Theobjections were filed by Sri Chand Mehta on 8/03/1975. Variouspleas were taken in resisting the said petition of the landlord but now twopleas have been raised before me in support of the said objections by learnedCounsel for the appellant. Firstly, that the order granting the permissionfor creating the limited tenancy was vitiated because of jurisdictional error,inasmuch as Sri Chand Mehta. was already in possession of the premises as atenant and thus the premises were not available for creating any limitedtenancy under Section 21 of the Act. The other plea urged before me is thatduring the pendency of the proceedings under Section 21 of the Act, therespondents, the heirs of the original landlord, had instituted an eviction caseagainst the appellants under Section 14-D which has the effect of wiping onthe proceedings under Section 21 of the Act inasmuch as the landlord hasnow treated the appellants as ordinary tenants for getting their eviction ourthe ground of eviction, if any, available under Section 14 of the Delhi RentControl Act and thus, the proceedings under Section 21 of the Act should bedeemed to be terminated.