ONKAR NATH BAJPAI Vs. PUROLATOR INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal by the landlord is directed against the order dated 23-1-1986 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal whereby his first appeal against the dismissal of the petition for recovery of possession under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act was also dismissed.

(2.) The premises in dispute i.e. first floor of house No. 32, Paschimi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi was leased out by the appellant to the respondent-company for residential purpose for a limited period of three years under Section 21 of the Act. The said period of three years was to expire on 18-12-1981. The execution of the order could be taken out within a period of six months, from the expiry of the period of tenancy. Instead of taking out the execution, a joint application was filed by the parties under Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 15-3-1982 i.e. within the period of six months. In the said application it was mentioned that the limited tenancy which was granted, was to expire on 18-12-1981 and that the execution of the same has to take place thereafter. It was further mentioned that the landlord had three sons, out of which the eldest son is working in Central Government Department and is married while the remaining two sons though adult are still unmarried but will get married after a period of three years and would thus require the aforesaid tenanted premises after the expiry of limited period of three years for settling down separately along with their families. It was also stated that in the situation the landlord not requiring the premises till 19th December, 1984, he has consented to allow the respondent-tenant to retain the said premises for another period of three years under the old terms and conditions of the limited tenancy already granted by the Court. In support of this joint application, affidavits were also filed by both the parties. In the affidavit filed by Mr. K.S. Natrajan, Secretary of the respondent-company, on behalf of the respondent, it was specifically stated that the premises had been taken only for residential purpose and that the possession thereof will be delivered to the landlord directly on the expiry of the lease of three years. In the last paragraph of the affidavit, it was stated that the deponent had read and understood the terms. and conditions of the lease agreement filed in the said case and that the respondent shall be bound and abide by the same. He also admitted as correct the other facts stated in the application. On this joint application filed by the parties, the learned Addl. Rent Controller passed the following order:-

(3.) After the expiry of the next period of three years, the landlord filed an application for reviving the proceedings and for taking possession of the premises in dispute. This application was resisted by the respondent- company on various grounds. It was pleaded that the application was not maintainable inasmuch as the tenancy under Section 21 of the Act had come to an end on 18-12-1981 and a fresh tenancy had been created between the parties. It was further pleaded that even the original permission under Section 21 of the Act was granted without application of mind and in fact the landlord had no requirement of the premises. The learned Addl. Rent Controller as also the Tribunal came to the finding that the limited tenancy had come to an end on 18-12-1981 and since no application for execution was filed and instead a compromise application was filed, the landlord was not entitled to take the benefit of Section 21 and as such the execution application was not maintainable.