MOHINDER NATH Vs. PANKAJ BHARGAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The appeal has arisen from an order of the Tribunal, upholding an order made by the Additional Rent Controller, dismissing objections of the appellants filed against an Execution Application of the respondents for recovery of possession of the premises under Section 21 of the Act.

(2.) THE respondents, who were minors, through their father Dr. O.P. Bhargava, made an application to the Controller for permission under Section 21 of the Act to let out a portion of property No. 19-20, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi, as a residence to the appellants for a period of five years. It was stated in the application that the respondents were the owners; that they were minors and that they would require the premises after five years. On the basis of a similar application of Dr. O.P. Bhargava, and the concurring statements of the two appellants, by an order dated 6th of April, 1988, the Controller granted permission for the premises to be let for a fixed period of five years. The parties also executed a lease-deed for the same period.

(3.) THE Controller rejected all the objections and found that the appellants "did come in possession of the premises in dispute prior to 6.4.78". However, in his opinion, the evidence on record did not establish "tenancy" of the premises prior to that date. He, therefore, held that it cannot be said that "any fraud was played upon the court" or that the sanction under Section 21 was vitiated "merely because the fact of occupation of the premises prior to 6.4.78 by the respondents had not been disclosed". On first appeal, the Tribunal upheld the Controller's order. With regard to the appellants occupation of the premises during the month of March, 1978, the Tribunal held "There was no payment of any consideration for enjoyment of the premises" (emphasis added) and "mere occupation of the premises by the appellants and their family prior to 6.4.1978 would not prove that they were tenants." The Tribunal also held that the objections raised by the appellants, after availing of the full term of five years, were "clearly after thought", and were, therefore, not maintainable.