NIHAL SINGH Vs. PARKASH CHAND KHURANA
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
PARKASH CHAND KHURANA
Click here to view full judgement.
Sultan Singh, J. -
(1.)This second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 17th July, 1982 confirming the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 29th January, 1982 dismissing the appellant's application for recovery of possession under Section 21 of the Act. Briefly the facts are that on 3rd January, 1977 the appellant and the respondent jointly filed an application under Section 21 of the Act seeking permission for letting second floor of the premises at plot No. R-810, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi by the appellant to the respondent for a fixed period of two years on a monthly rent of Rs. 1000.00 . It has been alleged in this application that the appellant, owner-landlord does not require the second floor premises for a period of two years.
(2.)The landlord made his statement before the Additional Controller as follows on 4th January, 1977 :-
"I am the owner of the premises. I want to let out and the respondent wants to take the premises shown in plan Ex. A1 being house No. R-810, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi for a period of 2 years from the date of letting according to law for residence proposed agreement is Ex. A2."
The tenant made the following statement :--
"I will be king the premises shown in plan Ex. at for a period of 2 years from the date of letting according to law for residence. I will vacate the premises after the expiry of 2 years without objection. Petitioner statement is correct. Proposed agreement is Ex. A2."
(3.)The Additional Controller on 4th January, 1977, passed the following order :-
"In view of the statement of the parties I am satisfied that petitioner wants to let out and the respondent wants to take the premises shown in plan Ex. A I being house No. R-810, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi for a period of two years from the date of letting according to law for residence and the petitioner will require the premises after 2 years for himself. I permit the petitioner to let out this premises to the respondent for a period of 2 years from the date of letting according to law for residence. The respondent shall vacate the premises after the expiry of 2 years. If he fails, the petitioner can apply for posession within 6 months after the expiry of 2 years. File be consigned."
The appellant-landlord after the spiry of two years filed an application for obtaining possession. The respondent filed objections dated 21st September, 1979. The respondent has alleged that the permission granted under Section 21 of the Act was not in accordance with law, that the appellant has been letting out various portions of the suit property after getting the same vacated at higher rent, that the appellant never disclosed why he would be requiring the premises after the expiry of two years. He has further state that the ground floor was vacated in February 1980 and then it was again let out to Dr. Arora, that the first floor was also let to Dr. (Mrs.) Kuljit Thakur for a fixed period under Section 21 of the Act and execution proceedings whereof are pending before the Additional Controller. As regards second floor he has alleged that prior to his occupation, the second floor was under the tenancy of Mr. K.S. Bajpai. He has further stated that the permission was a fraud upon the court, and he was forced to submit to the conditions suggested by the appellant, that the permission was obtained fraudulently and by misrepresentation of facts, that the appellant does not require the premines for himself and members of his family, that his family consists of himself and his wife. The appellant denied the allegations of the respondent.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.