SHIV SHANKAR KAPOOR Vs. AMAR BOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Shiv Shankar, Kapoor appellant, had leased out the second floor of his house No. 19/10. Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi, to Amar Bose respondent, for residential purpose for a limited period of three years after obtaining of the permission of the Rent Controller under the provisions of S .21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short 'the Act') on August 8,1980. The respondent-tenant did not vacate the peremises at the expiry of the period of three years. On October 14, 1983 the landlord filed an application against the respondent-tenant praying for the delivery of possession of the demised premises by way of execution of the order passed, under S. 21 of the Act. The tenant filed objections against the same. It was alleged that the permission granted by the Rent Controller under S. 21 of the Act was illegal and invalid as the same was obtained by the landlord's concealment of material facts and playing a fraud on the Rent Controller and the Rent Controller had passed the order mechanically as there was no material before him by which he could have reached satisfaction that the landlord did not require the premises only for a limited period of three years. The case of the landlord as disclosed in the application for permission to let out the premises for the limited period of three years, as also in his statement which was accepted by the tenant was that the premises namely, the accommodation with the tenant on the second floor comprising of two bed rooms, a kitchen, bath and a lavatory let at a monthly rent of Rs. 800.00 besides electricity and water charges would be required for a son of the petitioner-landlord after three years when he would be getting married. The tenant in the objections filed by him gave the details of the family members of the landlord, as also the accommodation that has been in possession of the landlord on the ground floor, first floor and the second floor of the building bearing No. 19/10, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi. It was stated that the son of the landlord about whom it was stated that he would be married after three years and then the accommodation would be required for him, was only 16 years of age at the time of seeking permission for the limited tenancy for three years, that this fact was not brought to the notice of the Rent Controller at the time of seeking his permission under S. 21 of the Act and nor did the Rent Controller himself try to find out his age and that had the Rent Controller found out the age of the son of the landlord he would not have accorded the permission for the limited tenancy for three years as a boy could not be expected to be married at the age of 19 years or so, that being even otherwise illegal. It was contended that thus it was clear that the parties had colluded and the landlord had played a fraud on the court of the Rent Controller in obtaining the permission under S. 21 of the Act.

(2.) . The Rent Controller agreed with the tenant that it was open to a tenant to prove at the execution stage that the earlier order granting permission was a mindless order and the requirements of S. 21 had not been fulfilled. On the merits of the case also the Rent Controller accepted the contention of the tenant that it was a case of non-application of mind on the part of the Rent Controller in granting permission as there was no material before the Rent Controller on which he could have been satisfied that the landlord did not require the premises only for the limited period of three years and after which he required the same for self-occupation. The Rent Controller accepted the objections of the tenant and the execution application for the delivery of possession of the landlord was dismissed by his impugned order dated August 9, 1985. This order was affirmed on appeal by the Rent Control Tribunal vide his order dated October 14,1986.

(3.) . The landlord, Shiv Shankar, Kapoor, appellant, has preferred this appeal against the impugned order of the Rent Control Tribunal affirming the order of the Rent Controller.