TEJINDER TEWARI Vs. SUBHASH LATA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to the above mnetioned appeals which are closely inter-connected and are directed against order dated 23rd April, 1983 of the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, succinctly are that wayback on 23rd February, 1976, the respondent-Smt. Subhash Lata Kumar moved two separate applications purporting to be under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act',) for permission to create two separate tenancies in favour of Shri Tejinder Tewari and Major R.C. Chhiba, the present appellants. In miscellaneous application No. 98/76, it was staled that the respondent-Maj. R.C. Chhiba had agreed to take on rent the ground floor of the rear portion of the property bearing No. N-57, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi, comprising drawing-cum-dining room with one bath room and a bed room besides other amenities on a monthly rent of Rs. 850.00 with effect from 25th February, 1976 for a period of two years for use as residence only on the terms and conditions set out in the draft lease-deed annexed thereto. She further stated that she was not in need of the said premises as landlady for a period of two years. Her statement was recorded by the Additional Rent Controller on 26th February, 1976 in which she, inter alia, stated that she wanted to let out the entire ground floor (rear portion) as she did not require the same for the aforesaid period of two years. The Additional Rent Controller also recorded the statement of the appellant R.C. Chhiba to the effect that he was prepared to take the aforesaid premises for residential purposes for a period of two years and that he would vacate the same on the expiry of two years. Thereupon, the Additional Rent Controller granted permission to the respondent-landlady to let the ground floor premises as shown in the pian Ex. at of premises N-57, Panchsheel Park Colony, to the appellant-Maj. R.C. Chibba for residential purpose for two years with effect from 1st March, 1976.

(2.) Likewise, the respondent-landlady sought permission in miscellaneous application No. 97/76 to let the first floor of the rear portion of the aforesaid property N-57, Panchsheel Park, comprising four bed rooms with attached bath and other facilities at a monthly rent of Rs. 850.00 with effect from the same date viz. 25th February, 1976 for a period of two years only. She stated therein loo that presently she was not in need of the said premises and she intended to resume her residence in Delhi after two years. After recording the statements of both the appellant and the respondent on 27th February, 1976. the Additional Rent Controller granted permission to let the premises for a limited period of two years with effect from 1st March, 1976.

(3.) On the expiry of the stipulated period of tenancy viz. two years, in both these cases the respondent-landlady moved two separate execution applications in July 1978 for being put back into possession of the demised premises. Notice thereof was issued to both the appellants and they filed separate objections in the two execution applications. However, the same were couched in identical language and raised a common defence. Their primary defence was that the entire rear portion of the property N-57, Panchsheel Park, consisting of the ground floor, first floor and the second floor had been let out by the respondent with effect from 10th December, 1975 to both of them jointly at Rs. 1700.00 per mensem and they paid a sum of Rs. 1700.00 to her by way of security deposit. Thereafter they paid Rs.5100.00 as rent for three months in advance with effect from 10th December. 1975 by means of a cheque drawn in favour of the respondent. The said cheque was duly encashed. They averred that thus an oral agreement of tenancy came into being between the parties and the entire premises, amended to above, were let out to them for a period of two years ending 31st December, 1977. They further contended that in February 1976 the respondent-landlady told them that the oral agreement of tenancy be formalised and they should sign the written agreement of tenancy. On this pretext she obtained signatures of both of them on various papers. However, she assured them that the oral tenancy already created in their favour would continue. The respondent further told them to appear in the court as the agreement of tenancy had to be registered. In view of the assurance given by the respondent that the oral tenancy created in their favour in December 1975 would continue and their rights would not be prejudiced in any manner, the appellants signed the various documents presented to them by the respondent in good faith and they also signed the proceedings which were recorded by the staff of the Presiding Officer in absolute good faith. However, subsequently the respondent again asked them in March 1976 to execute lease-deeds pursuant to the orders of the court. This excited their suspicion and they refused to sign any such lease-deed but the respondent again assured them that their old tenancy Would continue. Thus, the basic stand of the appellants was that they were not in occupation of the premises in question pursuant to any permission granted by the Additional Rent Controller under Section 21 of the Act and they were in occupation of the premises in question as joint tenants' under the old tenancy which still subsisted.