J L GUPTA Vs. RAJINDER PERSHAD JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the owner-landlord is directed against theorder dated 15.1.1985 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal whereby hisappeal against the holding of objections to the execution under section 21 ofthe Delhi Rent Control Act was also dismissed.

(2.) The appellant let his property namely house No. D-192, AshokVihar Phase 1. New Delhi ground floor to the respondent under section 21of the Delhi Rent Control Act on 10.7.1979. In the application under section21 it was stated that the petitioner at the relevant time was on deputation atKathmandu and after the expiry of period of deputation in February 1982 hewould come to Delhi with his family and would reside in the house in dispute.Since the appellant himself was actually on deputation, a statement to the sameeffect was made by the general attorney of the appellant. The respondent alsoagreed to take the property under section 21 and accepted the reasonings givenby the appellant Consequently the Rent Controller by his order dated10.7.1079 allowed the application and granted permission to let the propertyunder section 21 of the Act.

(3.) After the expiry of the period, the appellant filed a petition for execution.In response to the notice issued to the respondent, the respondent filed his objections to the execution. Though the objection petition runs into several pages butthe main objections are to the effect that even at earlier occasions the appellanthad been letting parts of his property under section 21 of the Act and the firstfloor of the house in dispute had already been let under section 21 of the Actand this fact was not disclosed to the Rent Controller in the application or inthe statement. The objection, regarding non-disclosure of the fact that the firstfloor of the property had already been let under section 21, was upheld bythe Rent Controller as also by the Tribunal. The main ground being thatthis was a material fact which had been suppressed and as such the appellantwas not entitled to seek eviction. The Rent Controller as also the Tribunalattempted to go into the question of sufficiency of accommodation availableto the appellant on the first floor of the house.