SWARN KANTA MEHRA Vs. VINAY K MAHENDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is yet another case in which inspite of the fact that the premises was let out under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), after obtaining permission of the Controller, the respondent/tenant has continued in possession of the premises till date though the period of limited tenancy expired on 30th April 1983.

(2.) . Briefly the facts are that the appellant is the owner/landlady of a double storey house bearing No.G-211, Naraina Residential Scheme, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi. The appellant was occupying the first floor of the said property. She applied to the Controller on 20th April 1979 under Section 21 of the Act for permission to let out the ground floor of the said property at a monthly rent of Rs.1150.00 exclusive of water and electricity charges for residential purposes to the respondent with effect from the date of permission for a period of four years. On 26th April 1979 statements of the appellant as well as the respondent were recorded by the Controller and by an order passed on the said date, the Controller granted permission under Section 21 of the Act to the appellant to let out ground floor of her said property comprising of drawing-dining room, three bedrooms, kitchen, two attached bath rooms, court-yard, as shown in the site plan Ex.A- 1, to the respondent for residential purposes for a limited period of four years w.e.f. 1st May 1979. The respondent started residing in the premises in pursuance of the said permission granted by the Controller. On 23rd January 1983 a notice was sent by the appellant landlady to the respondent for vacation of the tenancy premises on expiry of the limited tenancy. Another notice was sent by the landlady on 9th April 1983 to the respondent calling upon the respondent to vacate the premises on expiry of the limited tenancy. The lease was to expire on 30th April 1983. The respondent did not vacate the premises by the said date. On 3rd May 1994, the appellant landlady filed an application for purposes of restoration of the possession of the premises in question to her in view of failure of the respondent to hand over vacant possession of the premises after the expiry of limited tenancy. In pursuance of the notice of the application served on the respondent, he filed objections on 12th August 1983. The objections were amended by the respondent and amended objections were filed on 22nd March 1985. The Addl. Rent Controller dismissed the application of the landlady on 12th April 1985 upholding the objections filed by the respondent/tenant. At this stage the main objections of the respondent/tenant may be noted. These are:-

(3.) . The appellant landlady filed an appeal against the order of the Addl. Rent Controller which met the same fate. It was dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal vide its impugned judgment dated 23rd November 1985. The Tribunal decided the first objection against the tenant, i.e. the finding of the Addl. Rent Controller that increase in rent gave rise to a fresh tenancy was set aside and it was held that this did not give rise to a fresh tenancy. On the second objection of the tenant the Tribunal decided in tenant's favour holding that the reason for creation of limited tenancy was not genuine and the Addl. Rent Controller who granted the permission ought to have inquired into the matter. In the absence of inquiry the order granting permission was a mindless and mechanical order and, therefore, it had no sanctity.