DUNI CHAND Vs. VED PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal arising out of order of the Rent Control Tribunal, dismissing the landlord's application for warrant of possession under section 21 of Delhi Rent Control Act 1958, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and setting aside order of the Additional Rent Controller dismissing objections of the tenant against it.

(2.) The premises on the first floor of the building were let out to Ved Prakash for a period of four years by virtue of permission granted by the Controller under section 21 of the Act by an order made on 16th November 1973, on a joint application by the landlord and the tenant. It was stated in the application, inter alia, that the landlord was occupying another portion on the same floor; that the son of the landlord was abroad, and, he was not likely to return for the next about four years; so, the landlord did not require the premises in the rear portion of the building for that period; and that the tenant required the same for residential purposes for a period of four years only.

(3.) Afterexpiry of the period of four years, the landlord applied for warrant the possession of the premises. Notice of the application was issued to the tenant. He filed a reply which was treated as objections. He denied that he was a tenant. He pleaded, inter alia, that he never occupied the premises, that he never paid rent for it, and, that the premises were in occupation of his uncle Loku Ram since 1970 on the basis of aninitial lease for a limited period of 11 months, and for afurther period of eleven months on the basis of permission obtained from the Controller under Section 21 of the Act, and that Loku Ram remained in possession inspite of permission sought for the third time being refused by an order made on 1st August 73 by the Controller. Loku Ram was also allowed to file objections on an application made by him for that purpose In his objections he raised pleas similar to those of Ved Prakash. He further alleged that permission of the Controller and lease obtained in favour Ved Prakash was merely camouflage since the Controller refused to grant permission for the third time in his name, that he was the real. tenant, that fraud was played on the Controller in obtaining permission to let out the premises to Ved Praksh, and that landlord was not entitled to warrant of possession under section 21 of the Act.