DELUX PICTURES Vs. PRITAM PAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brig. Pritam Pal Singh made an application to the Controller on 7th July, 1978 for permission to create a fixed term tenancy under section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in respect of ground floor of house No. D/386 Defence Colony New Delhi in favour of M/s Delux Pictures, Delhi through their sole proprietor Shri Dhru. In this application Pritampal Singh stated that the ground floor has been constructed on an area of 325 Sq. yards for his own use and for the residence of his children. He did not require the premises fora period of four years i.e. from 12th July, 1978 to 12th July, 1982 and, therefore, agreed to let out the premises to the said Delux Pictures. After the expiry of the said period the landlord shall require the premises for his bona fide requirement and for the bona fide requirement of his children. He made a statement before the Controller that the premises were surplus with him for a period of four years. He had not let out any portion of it to anybody prior to it. His son has gone to a foreign country and he would return after four years when he shall require the premises. The Additional Controller, there upon, on 10.7.1978 granted permission for residential purpose for a limited period of four years.

(2.) The landlord petitioner filed an application section 21 for the recovery of possession after the expiry of the said period. The Additional Controller issued warrants for possession. But before they could be executed the tenant filed objections on 24.1.1983. He stated that no order for recovery of vacant possession can be made because permission under section 21 was a mere make believe and was vitiated by fraud and collusion, and therefore, was inexecutable because the petitioner concealed the material facts. It was not a case of a limited tenancy but a regular tenancy. The landlord misrepresented that his son would return after four years while the fact was that his son was a green card holder in U.S.A., had acquired citizenship there, had married a foreigner, had permanently settled abroad and had no intention to return and reside in India permanently. After the grant of permission the landlord took a loan of Rs. 50,000.00 from the tenant, constructed the first and second floors and servant quarters above the suit premises. He let the out Barsati floor. He is however, in possession of the entire first floor which consists of drawing room, three bed rooms, three bath rooms and a kitchen, where he is residing alone with his wife. This accommodation is sufficient for him. Even if his son returns he would not require any further accommodation. The landlord obtained the permission under section 21 under the threat and pressure that if the tenant did not agree to his conditions the premises would not be let to him. The petitioner wanted to keep a sword of democles hanging on the head of the tenant in the form of a fictitious permission so that the petitioner should force the tenant to agree to a substantial increase in the montly rent on the expiry of the four years period. It is what be in fact is doing now. At present the tenant is paying Rs. 1700.00 per month, the petitioner has been asking the tenant to increase the rent to Rs. 5,000/. It was further alleged that the petitioner made a false statement before the Additional Rent Controller on 10th of July, 1978 that he had not let out any portion to anybody prior to its. The fact is that he had let out the suit premises to one Kanodia prior to the present tenant for eight years. Kanodia had left just one or two months before the respondent became tenant in the suit premises. The petitioner had also obtained vacant possession of another premises which are owned by him and bear No. C-27 Lajpat Nagar-3, after obtaining an eviction order against the tenant Mr. V.P. Raman, which premises are also at the disposal of the petitioner landlord.

(3.) The Additional Controller by his order dated 23.7.1983 held that no lease deed was produced and therefore it was incorrect to say that it was created by concealment of material facts or collusion in the court. When the petitioner made a statement in the court that he would be requiring the premises after a period of four years for his son who had gone abroad, there was no concealment of facts from the court. Firstly, it was not certain at that time that petitioner's son may not intend to return to India at all. That apart., if for some reason the son is unable to return, it cannot be said that fraud was played upon the court at the time when premission was obtained. The subsequent construction on the first floor does not in any manner make the order of the court redundant. At the time when permission was obtained the petitioner owned only the demised premises and if he has constructed the first floor and servant quarters later on and has let out some of it, it will not disentitle the petitioner from obtaining restoration of possession. The allegation that the tenant was pressurised into limited tenancy does not imply any fraud or collusion. It is also not material that the rate of rent currently has arisen more than that on which the premises were let out. The learned Additional Controller, therefore, rejected the objections and issued warrants of possession.