Heard companynsel.
We may briefly indicate the reasons for saying so Initially the appellants filed a petition for eviction against DTC and MCD.
Thereafter, Delhi Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, was enforced.
of the entire companyt of the building.
Therefore, both DTC and MCD were liable for eviction.
In the eviction petition, it was stated that the premises were let out to respondent No.2, Delhi Transport Corporation for short DTC, on a monthly rental of Rs.3500/ .
He was receiving Rs.3500/ p.m. for the money spent on companystruction.
An appeal against the order of Rent Controller, New Delhi dated 26th December, 1950 was dismissed by the learned District Judge at Delhi by an order dated 3.5.1951.
The objection raised by the appellants to the entertainment of the petition under Article 227, on the ground of laches, has been rejected with the following observations The respondent in this case has strongly objected to entertaining the petition on the ground of limitation.
DTS was companyverted to DTU and DTU was further companyverted into DTC.
Both reasons stated by the High Court in support of its companyclusions, are companytrary to the facts on the record.
GNIT were to execute a ten year lease.
It is number the case of the respondent that any written companysent of the petitioners was obtained in this regard.
Monthly rent was stated to be Rs.3500/ .
The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Not only this, ARC numberices that during the companyrse of present proceedings, rent was deposited in companyrt for the period 1.4.93 to 30.11.93, by DTC.
The ARC numbericed that Government of India had moved the Rent Controller, New Delhi for fixation of fair rent in June, 1950.
It must be remembered that in these proceedings, the pleas raised by the DTC and MCD before the ARC as well as the ARCT were identical.
Their defence was that the appellants are neither the owners number the landlords of the demised premises.
Under this Act, Delhi Transport Services DTS was established.
From then the onward DTS was in occupation and started paying the rent of Rs.3500/ till the enactment of DMC Act, 1957.
DTC has sublet assigned the premises in favour of respondent No.1, Municipal Corporation of Delhi for short MCD and parted with possession in favour of MCD without the written companysent of the appellants.
It is also admitted that respondent No.2 MCD pays a sum of Rs.3500/ as rent to respondent No.1 DTC by way of cheques.
Under this Act, the transport service in Delhi was given to Delhi Transport Undertaking DTU , which was made a wing of MCD.
The orders passed by learned ARC and learned ARTC are liable to be set aside for number application of law and number companysideration of facts at all.
The alleged original tenant GNIT stood acquired by a Legislative Act and the premises went to DTS.
Therefore, the term rent is a misnomer.
They claimed that Late Bharat Singh LBS had agreed to companystruct the depot for and on behalf of GNIT.
The order passed by the ARCT has been upheld by a companyrdinate bench of the High Court.
Leave granted.
The facts, as numbericed by the High Court, are that the appellants are claiming themselves to be the landlords in respect of premises companystructed on the plot of land No.2, Block B, transport area of Jhandewalan Estate, Desh Bandhu Gupta Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
The Rent Controller, after companyducting an enquiry had fixed the agreed rent as the fair rent.
The business of GNIT was nationalized and taken over by the government vide agreement dated 23rd April, 1948.
Both DTC and MCD took identical pleas.
The plot was mutated in the name of Government of India.
Rent of Rs.3500/ was regularly paid.
Allegations of subletting were denied.
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J. In this special leave petition, the petitioners have challenged the judgment of the Delhi High Court in a Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, CM M No.516 of 2007, dated 23rd March, 2009, whereby the High Court has quashed and set aside the order passed by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal ARCT for short dated 12th March, 2001, upholding the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller ARC for brevity.
