R M L BHATNAGAR Vs. INDER PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Inder Parkash, respondent No. 1, was the owner of property No. A-14, Green Park, New Delhi. He applied to the Controller under section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1955, herein called 'the Act' for obtaining permission to let out the entire ground floor of the said house for a limited period of 11 months. On permission being granted on, June 4, 1970, the ground floor was let out to Lt.Col R.M.L. Bhatnagar, the appellant, as a residence for the period expiring, on May 3 1971. Before the said period expired Shri Inder Parkash entered into an agreement dated April 15, 1971 for the sale of the said property, with Bengal Suppliers and Health Builders Private Limited, respondent No. 2. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 are the directors of respondent No. 2.

(2.) While there were still some days for the limited period to expire, a second application under section 21 of the Act was filed by Shri Inder Parkash, jointly with the appellant tenant for permission to let out the aforesaid premises for a further period of 11 months. The Controller, however, dismissed the said application. On appeal to the Rent Control Tribunal, the required permission under section 21 was granted on May 25, 1971 to create a tenancy in favour of the appellant for a limited period of 11 months from the date of the said order. On September 2, 1971, Shri Inder Parkash executed a registered sale deed in respect of the said property in favour of respondent No. 2, the vendee, who, thus, became the landlord.

(3.) As the appellant tenant did not vacate the premises on the expiry of the limited period for which the premises had been let out to him under a written agreement after obtaining the said permission under section 21 of the Act, respondent No. 2, the vendee, made an application before the Controller for obtaining vacant possession of the premises by evicting the appellant. The latter objected to the maintainability of the application on the ground that the permission obtained by Shri Inder Parkash, respondent No. 1. could not be availed of by the vendee, respondent No. 2. The Controller dismissed the tenant's objection and ordered the issuance of warrants of possession. Tenant's appeal was dismissed, likewise, by the Rent Control Tribunal. The tenant then field the present second appeal.