PANKAJ BHARGAVA Vs. MOHINDERNATH
LAWS(SC)-1990-12-33
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: DELHI)
Decided on December 11,1990

PANKAJ BHARGAVA Appellant
VERSUS
MOHINDERNATH Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

PREM NATH GUPTA VS. KAMAL KRIPLANI [LAWS(DLH)-1991-1-68] [REFERRED]
ATMA STEEL LIMITED VS. HARBIR SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-1992-1-28] [REFERRED]
PARVEEN AGNIHOTRI VS. ANURADHA MALHOTRA [LAWS(DLH)-1992-2-44] [REFERRED]
ASHOK MEHTA VS. KAMAL NAIN KAUR [LAWS(DLH)-1993-7-22] [REFERRED]
HATDIT SINGH CHADHA VS. JAGTAR SINGH GORVER [LAWS(DLH)-1993-10-6] [APPLIED )]
SWARN KANTA MEHRA VS. VINAY K MAHENDRA [LAWS(DLH)-1995-9-62] [REFERRED]
SURAJ PRAKASH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1997-12-17] [REFERRED]
PROFESSOR RAMESH CHANDRA VS. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2009-5-14] [REFERRED TO]
VISHRAM MASIH VS. HARIHAR SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-1993-1-64] [REFERRED TO]
KIRAN SINGH VS. BALBIR SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-1993-1-7] [REFERRED TO]
LALLAN PRASAD VS. RAM KISHUN PRASAD [LAWS(ALL)-1999-10-75] [REFERRED TO]
MANJULA PANT VS. BHATKHANDE MUSIC INSTITUTE A DEEMED UNIVERSITY LUCKNOW [LAWS(ALL)-2009-4-261] [REFERRED TO]
GOPALA RAO B VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1997-3-67] [REFERRED TO]
AXIS BANK LIMITED VS. NATUROL BIOENERGY LIMITED [LAWS(APH)-2012-4-84] [REFERRED TO]
P K HANDIQUE VS. STATE OF MEGHALAYA [LAWS(GAU)-2008-9-19] [REFERRED TO]
PIRANI AND CO VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(APH)-2001-3-79] [REFERRED TO]
SHIVAPPA VS. KERIYAMMA [LAWS(KAR)-1995-6-25] [FOLLOWED ON]
KULSOMA BIBI VS. ABDUL MANNAN [LAWS(CAL)-2001-7-1] [REFERRED TO]
S BALASUBRAMANIYAM VS. P JANAKARAJU [LAWS(KAR)-2004-4-19] [REFERRED TO]
SRINIDHI SILKS AND TEXTILES SHIMOGA VS. REGIONAL DIRECTOR EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION BANGALORE [LAWS(KAR)-2005-6-19] [REFERRED TO]
MALAGOUDA JINAGOUDA PATIL VS. SHANTAPPA YESHWANT MIRJI [LAWS(KAR)-2005-7-16] [REFERRED TO]
KULWANT KAUR VS. GURDIAL SINGH MANN [LAWS(SC)-2001-3-12] [REFERRED]
SHRISHT DHAWAN VS. SHAW BROTHERS [LAWS(SC)-1991-12-35] [RELIED ON]
SUNIL PURI VS. MODI SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-1995-2-55] [REFERRED]
MILAN ANANDAN VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2005-9-258] [REFERRED TO]
HARDHAYANDAS VS. HIFAZAT HUSSAIN DIED PER L R AIZAZ HUSSAIN [LAWS(APH)-1994-9-52] [REFERRED TO]
N POSETTY VS. N JAGANNADHAM [LAWS(APH)-2011-3-100] [REFERRED TO]
E AMARNATH RAO VS. G VIJAYA GOWRI [LAWS(APH)-2011-8-110] [REFERRED TO]
RATANLAL BANSILAL VS. KISHORILAL GOENKA [LAWS(CAL)-1992-12-3] [REFERRED TO]
BALAI CHANDRA PARUI VS. DURGA BALA DASI [LAWS(CAL)-2004-4-32] [REFERRED TO]
MUNEMMA VS. N VENKATESHAPPA [LAWS(KAR)-2010-7-25] [REFERRED TO]
Abi International VS. Additional Commissioner of Customs [LAWS(MAD)-2003-10-71] [REFERRED TO]
ABNASH CHANDER VS. ABHIMANY ANSAL [LAWS(P&H)-1994-8-14] [REFERRED TO]
NIMBO VS. SATYABIR SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1994-9-37] [REFERRED TO]
LAL BABU YADAV VS. RAM BILASH RAI [LAWS(PAT)-1996-5-5] [REFERRED TO]
DHARAMBIR KHATTAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2012-11-123] [REFERRED TO]
Gopi Krishna VS. Ram Prakash Agarwal and Others [LAWS(ALL)-2011-12-237] [REFERRED TO]
SAUDARSHAN KUMAR VS. RAJ RANI [LAWS(P&H)-2003-4-59] [REFERRED TO]
MUKESH MUTNEJA VS. CHATTERBHUJ LILAWATI TRUST [LAWS(P&H)-2003-4-75] [REFERRED TO]
UMESH AGARWAL VS. MAHESH AGARWAL [LAWS(SIK)-2013-8-2] [REFERRED TO]
B. NONGRUM VS. GOVERNMENT OF MEGHALAYA [LAWS(MEGH)-2014-3-10] [REFERRED TO]
CHUNI LAL VS. MOHINDER SINGH [LAWS(HPH)-2008-3-28] [REFERRED TO]
NAGENDRA RAI VS. HOWRAH IMPROVEMENT TRUST [LAWS(CAL)-2014-9-48] [REFERRED TO]
PURNIMA MANTHENA AND ORS. VS. RENUKA DATLA AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2015-10-16] [REFERRED TO]
ARUNACHAL PRADESH CONGRESS COMMITTEE (APCC), ARUNACHAL PRADESH AND ORS. VS. KALIKHO PUL [LAWS(GAU)-2015-10-27] [REFERRED TO]
NIASHA DEI VS. RADHAMANI DUTTA AND OTHERS [LAWS(ORI)-1995-4-52] [REFERRED TO]
JANTA VIDYALAYA INTER COLLEGE, ALINAGAR KENJRA AND ANOTHER VS. BOARD OF REVENUE, U.P., AT ALLAHABAD AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-1994-4-91] [REFERRED TO]
D. MAHESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(APH)-2016-11-7] [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. DASHMESH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY [LAWS(P&H)-2004-10-99] [REFERRED]
PATTANDUR AGRAHARA RESIDENTIAL WELFARE ASSOCIATIONS FEDERATION VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2019-4-239] [REFERRED TO]
SAMDARIYA BUILDERS PVT. LTD. VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2018-10-177] [REFERRED TO]
JAMEELA BANO VS. QAZI ABDUL RASHID [LAWS(J&K)-2021-11-2] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Venkatachaliah, J. - (1.)The appellant-landlords seek special leave to appeal to this Court from the judgment dated 29-11- 1989 of the High Court of Delhi in S.A.P. No. 384 of 1987 allowing respondent-tenants' appeal and setting aside the appellate order dated 17-10-1987 of the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi which had confirmed the order of the Rent Controller dated 16-2-1987, granting possession of premises No. 19/20, New Rohtak Road, to the appellants upon the expiration of a limited-tenancy under S. 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, (Act).
(2.)The effect of the High Court's judgment was invalidation of the permission for the limited-tenancy and refusal of appellants' prayer for possession. The High Court held that the initial grant of permission by the Rent Controller under S. 21 for a limited-tenancy for five years from 6-4-1978 was itself marred by a fraudulent suppression of material facts; that the permission, in effect, was merely an ex-post facto sanction of a subsisting tenancy which had earlier come into existence on 5-31978 and that, therefore, the appellants were not entitled to the benefit of S. 21. The High Court relied upon a pronouncement of this Court in Subhash Kumar Lata v. R. C. Chhiba (1988) 4 SCC 709 to support its view that the nullity of the order under S. 21 obtained by fraud could be urged in defence against execution.
(3.)We have heard Sri Rajinder Sachar, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Sri Avadh Bihari Rohtagi, learned senior counsel for the respondent-tenants. Special leave is granted. The necessary and material facts, briefly stated, are these:Appellants and the respondents by their joint application to the Rent Controller sought for and obtained permission for a limited-tenancy for five years under S. 21. Respondents not having surrendered possession upon the expiry of the said period of five years, the appellants commenced proceedings for redelivery. Respondents resisted the proceedings raising several contentions. They urged that the appellants were not the owners of the premises at all; that the permission under S. 21 was vitiated by fraud resulting from a suppression by the appellants of the material fact that at the relevant time the premises was not available for letting at all; that respondents had been inducted into possession as tenants from 5-3-1978 itself and, therefore, one of the basic jurisdictional requirements for the grant of permission under S. 21 was absent and that, at all events, a fresh contractual tenancy had been created with effect from 6-4-1983 immediately upon the expiry of the five year term of the limited-tenancy.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.