The appellant asserted that in the beginning the premises had been let out to an official of the Government for a period of three years companymencing from August 29, 1973, but the tenant vacated the premises after 6 or 7 months and thereafter it became necessary to let out the premises to the respondent on April 15, 1974 after obtaining permission under s. 21 of the Act.
It was denied that the premises were available for indefinite letting, and the periodic tenancies, it was asserted, were entered into because of the circumstances prevailing on each occasion.
The appellant urged that the premises were number required by her as her son, an Indian Air Force officer, had to shift his family to Delhi, and it was further pointed out that the premises were to be occupied by the appellant and the family members of that son as the climate of Bangalore did number suit them.
It adverted to a statement made by the appellant regarding the transfer of her son to Delhi, and deduced from the language employed by her that she wanted to companyvey that her son had been posted earlier in Delhi and that he was number being transferred back to Delhi.
That period expired in April 1980.
1795 of 1986 From the Judgment and order dated 25.9.1984 of the Delhi High Court in S.A.O. No.
Accordingly, the premises were let out by the appellant to the respondent on March 11, 1977 after obtaining permission under s. 21 of the Act.
It was asserted that the premises were companystructed in the year 1973 and were let out to an official of the Government under s. 21 of the Act for a period of one year.
Thereafter the respondent approached the appellant again to let out the premises for a limited period of two years.
It was said that on the request of the appellant the respondent joined in an application for permission under s. 21 of the Act.
Mrs. Shyamla Pappu, N.S. Das Bahl, P.K. Bahl and P.S. Mahindra for the Appellant.
It was thereafter that the appellant obtained permission under s. 21 of the Act for letting out the premises to the respondent for a period of two years.
A registered deed was executed between the parties in that behalf.
She let out the premises for a limited period of two years to the respondent, who is a judicial officer.
As the appellants second son, who is an officer in the Indian Air Force, was posted at Bangalore and the appellant was number in a position to occupy the premises all alone, she agreed to let out the premises to the respondent.
The appellant appealed to the Rent Control Tribunal and the Tribunal held that the allegation of the respondent that he had already entered into possession of the premises before permission was granted under s. 21 of the Act in 1974 was false, and even if it be assumed that he had done so there was numberhing to prevent him from surrendering the tenancy.
The appellant stated further that the respondent had given numberice to the appellant on February 27, 1977 expressing his intention to vacate the premises and that in fact he did vacate the premises on that date after settling the account in respect of the rent.
The appellant further stated that on the expiry of the period, the respondent again vacated the premises and shifted to 13, Palam Marg, New Delhi.
The possession of the premises was handed over to the respondent on March 11, 1977 in pursuance of the permission, and the rate of rent agreed to was Rs.825 per mensem.
The respondent urged that he was in uninterrupted possession since April 1974 and that numberground had been disclosed by the appellant in the application for permission under s. 21 of the Act made in the year 1980 indicating the reason for letting out the premises for a limited period of two years.
When the appellant applied for permission, it is alleged, she did number disclose to the Rent Controller that earlier also she had inducted a person as tenant after obtaining such permission.
P.Bansal, K.C.Dua and P.O.Gupta for the Respondent.
A second appeal by the appellant was dismissed summarily by the High Court.
The two years expired on April 21, 1982 but the respondent did number hand over possession of the premises to the appellant.
It was pointed out that in the application under s. 21 of the Act.
It was denied that the respondent had already occupied the premises as a regular tenant before permission under s. 21 of the Act had been granted.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
On the official vacating the premises after one year, it was alleged, they were let out to the respondent at a rent of Rs.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PATHAK, J. Special leave granted.
The appellant filed her reply to the objection and vehemently denied that the order under s. 21 of the Act granting permission in 198 was nullity or had been obtained by fraud or that any material fact had been withheld in the application for permission.
725 per mensem in the first week of April 1974 as a regular tenant.
It is alleged that permission was granted mechanically by the Rent Controller, and that it companyld number be recognised as binding on the respondent.
She did so after obtaining the requisite permission under s. 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act on April 22, 1980.
On October 20, 1982 the respondent filed his objection, alleging that the order granting permission under s. 21 of the Act was obtained by fraud practised on the Rent Controller and was a nullity.
A warrant of possession was issued.
lt was maintained that the respondent occupied the premises on April 15, 1974 pursuant to the permission under s. 21 of the Act.
That was evident when he joined the appellant in the application for permission under s. 21 of the Act in 1974.
It is a single storeyed house.
This is a land ladys appeal by special leave directed against the order of the High Court of Delhi dismissing her second appeal in limine.
But a few days after leaving the premises the respondent again approached the appellant for taking the premises on rent.
On the expiry of three years, the respondent said, the appellant again, in the year 1977, obtained permission under s. 21 of the Act for letting out the premises at an enhanced rent of R.S 825 per mensem for a limited period of two years to the respondent.
The appellant is the owner of the premises No.
Accordingly the appellant prayed for an order directing delivery of possession of the premises to her.
It also pointed out that the unsuitability of the climate of Bangalore in regard to her grandson as the reason for the family desiring to settle in Delhi had number been mentioned at the initial stage of the litigation.
the respondent gave his address as Village Khandsara, near Gurgaon, Haryana where he was then residing in the factory premises of his son.
The deed recorded the undertaking of the respondent to vacate the premises at the end of two years.
F 8/ 17, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.
On January 21, 1984 the First Additional Rent Controller, Delhi upheld the objection filed by the respondent and dismissed the execution application of the appellant made under s. 21 of the Act.
283 of 1984.
On April 21, 198 the appellant and the respondent joined in the application for obtaining permission under s.21 of the Act to enable the appellant to let out the premises to the respondent for a period of two years.
