S L SEHGAL Vs. OM PRAKASH MITTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 27/7/1977 the appellant and the respondent made an application under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') before the Rent Controller, Delhi for permission to let out the ground floor of House No. E-239, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi to the appellant for a period of three years. On 28/7/1977statements of the appellant and the respondent were recorded and the Additional Controller granted permission to the respondent to let out the said premises to the appellant for residential purposes for a period of three years with effect from 28/7/1977.

(2.) On 20/1/1981 the respondent filed an application for obtaining possession of the said premises. On 27/3/1981 the appellant filed objections. He has alleged that the respondent was not entitled to possession of the suit premises : his son P.K. Sehgal was tenant in the premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 500.00 from 1/8/1974 to 13/11/1976 when he was transferred to "Nasik and from 14/11/1976 the appellant was accepted as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 700.00 by the respondent ; the appellant had paid rent for the period 14/11/1976 onwards Rs. 700.00per month and he has been in possession of the ration card showing that he and his family has been in possession ; the respondent played fraud ; the appellant wanted to continue as tenant in the premises as his second son Vijay Kumar Sehgal had been running chemist shop in Shop No. I, Central Market, Naraina, New Delhi and he was made to make a statement in court; after expiry of the period of three years the respondent demanded enhanced rent at Rs. 900.00 per month i.e. Rs. 700.00 by cheque for Rs. 200.00 without receipt ; the appellant issued a cheque for Rs. 4,900.00 in favour of the respondent for the period August, 1980 to February, 1981 but the respondent refused to accept ; the respondent in order to show that the appellant was not in possession of the premises at the time of application under Section 21 of the Act had given the address of the appellant as resident of E-11, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi belonging to a relation of his though the appellant never resided there and has been continuously residing in the suit house as a tenant under the respondent.

(3.) The respondent in reply denied the allegations of the appellant. He has pleaded that the, bjections were barred by principles of estoppel and waiver ; the premises were never let to the appellant prior to the grant of permission dated 28/7/1977.