B.K. KAPUR Vs. P.D. GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 17th December 1993 passed by the Addl.Rent Controller who has been imp leaded as respondent No.1 By the impugned order the respondent No.1 allowed oral evidence to be led in support of the objections filed by the objector respondent No.2 against the order dated 31st October 1980 of the then Addl.Rent Controller granting permission for fixed term lease by the petitioners of the suit property in favor of respondent No.2 for a period of five and half years under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (herein after referred to as the Act). By virtue of the objections filed by respondent No.2 about 12 days before the expiry of the period of lease the respondent No.2 has been able to drag on the matter for almost ten years and has continued to enjoy the suit premises and retain its possession so far. The necessary facts for the present purposes are: -

(2.) THE petitioners Shri B.K. Kapur and his mother Smt. Bindra Devi Kapur are the owners of the suit premises, i.e. 46,Friends Colony, New Delhi. The petitioners and the respondent No.2 entered into an arrangement under which the suit premises was to be let out to the respondent No.2 for a fixed period of five years and six months starting from 1st November 1980 under Section 21 of the Act. A joint application under Section 21 of the Act for permission to lease out the premises for a fixed period was filed before the Controller. A draft of the proposed lease deed which was to be entered into between the parties was annexed to the application. The Addl.Rent Controller who was seized of the matter recorded statements of Shri Rajiv Chaudhary on behalf of the petitioners and Shri Jagdish Kumar on behalf of the respondent on 31st October 1980. On the same date the Addl.Rent Controller passed the order allowing the application for grant of permission to the petitioners to let out the premises as shown in plan Ex.A -3 which was also annexed to the joint application to the respondents for residential purposes for a period of five and half years w.e.f. 1st November 1980. After the permission was granted on 11th November 1980 the parties executed a formal lease deed as per the draft lease deed Filed before the Controller and possession of the premises was handed over to the respondent No.2. It is recorded in the lease deed dated 11th November 1980 that the said lease deed was being executed in pursuance of the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 31st October 1980 granting permission to lease out the suit premises for a fixed period of five years and six months starting with 1st November 1980. The period under the lease was to expire on 30th April 1986. On 10th March 1986 the petitioner No.1 wrote a letter to the respondent company reminding it that the premises was required by the petitioners for personal use and occupation and, thereforee, it was to be ensured that the possession of the premises is given back to the petitioners on or before 30th April 1986. The petitioner further called upon the respondent to inform the petitioner the date when the possession of the house could be handed back to the petitioners, The petitioner also sought an opportunity to visit the house for a general inspection within the next two weeks of the said letter. The receipt of this letter is not disputed by the respondent. On 19th April 1986 the respondent filed objections before the Addl.Rent Controller challenging the validity of the order dated 31st October 1980 whereby permission under Section 21 of the Act was granted. The period under lease was due to expire on 30th April 1986.

(3.) THE grievance of the petitioners in the present petition is that the impugned order is contrary to the provisions of Section 21 of the Act and the assurance contained in the said provision to the landlords that they will be put in vacant possession of the tenanted premises on the expiry of the fixed term tenancy as held by the Supreme Court in its various decisions on the subject. According to the petitioners the impugned order permits a collateral challenge to the order of the Addl.Rent Controller dated 31st October 1980 whereby the permission for fixed term tenancy was granted.