UMESH KUMAR GUPTA Vs. W M SADOC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord Dr. W.M Sadoc filed an execution application under Sec. 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter the Act) because the three years of limited tenancy had expired. The lease agreement was executed on 6-12-1976 for a period of three years. The respondent filed objections on 11-4-1980. In these objections he stated that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He denied that the parmises were let out to him and that he was inducted as a tenant. His father Munna Lal Gupta was in fact the tenant.

(2.) He made an application on 11-9-1981 under Order 6 Rule 17 and Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He wanted to insert an amendment showing how his father became the tenant. He stated that the permission under Sec. 21 of the Act was granted on 12-12-1976 to him out on 1-2-1978 it was agreed between the landlord and his father that the fixed term tenancy should be surrendered, the defendant would not be a tenant and Munna Lal Gupta would become the tenant of the premises in dispute and the month of tenancy would commence on the 1st of each calendar month. The fixed term tenancy came to an end and a regular tenancy for an indefinite period was created in favour of Munna Lal Gupta with effect from 1-2-1978. Thus with effect from 1-2-1978, there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and as such no execution under Sec. 21 of the Act can be maintained against him.

(3.) The learned Additional Controller by his order dated 14-5-1982 dismissed the application. He was of the view that the respondent wants to introduce entirely a new case and wants to retract from his reply dated 11-4-1980 that he was never a tenant and the premises under Section 21 were never let to him. He now wants to say that he ceased to be a tenant after 31-1-1978.