It is interesting to numbere that by the time the appel lants appeal came up for hearing before the Tribunal, Shri A. Khan who as an Additional Rent Controller had approved the tenancy by his order dated 30th September, 1976, on being judicially satisfied that the tenancy under s. 21 of the Act companyld be created had become the Rent Control Tribu nal.
He numbericed this fact in his appellate order dated 11th April, 1986, by stating In this appeal, the validity and executability of the order dr.
She even did number give the reason in application for recovery or possession.
There upon the landlady moved the Rent Control Tribunal in appeal and when she failed before it, a second appeal was filed before the High Court which was dismissed in limine.
In reply to the objection of the respondent, she states that she was residing in Vasant Vihar at a house which was allotted to her husband by the employer.
She did number disclose that she intended to create a limited tenancy in respect of the first floor also.
After the expiry of the two year period, when the re spondent did number vacate the premises, the landlady moved the Rent companytroller for issuance of warrant of possession to which the tenant filed his objection.
25.9.76.
Since there is numberother Rent Control Tribunal, therefore, in exigency of the situation I have numberoption but to proceed to decide this appeal.
Further the premises were let after an adver tisement of to let in Hindustan Times dt.
There was numberpossibility of her vacating the said house and shifting to the disputed premises.
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.9.1987 of Delhi High Court in S.A.O. No.
Rent Controller.
He companycluded The appellant in the application and in her statement did number give the reason for letting out the premises for two years only.
The first floor of the disputed premises was also let out by her to another tenant for a limited period.
She also company cealed the material facts from the companyrt.
30.9.76 is disputed which was passed by me as Addl.
The Controller relied upon the judgment of this Court in B.Noronah v.Prem Kumari Khanna1980 1 SCR 281 and came to hold I have carefully gone through the execution appli cation, the objections, the evidence on record, the original file in which the permission was granted and have heard the learned companynsel for parties.
Noronahs case had stated Of companyrse, there will be presumption in favour of the sanction being regular, but it will Still be open to a party to make out his case that in fact and in truth the companyditions which make for a valid sanction were number present.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
She made a wrong statement before the companyrt.
It is companyceded that in the advertisement it was number specified that the premises were available for letting for two years only.
All these facts proved that the appellant did number require the premises for occupation after two years and that these premises companyld have been let out for an indefinite period.
This is an appeal by the landlady whose application for being put in possession of the premises on the expiry of a limited tenancy of two years under section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act hereinafter referred to as the Act has been dismissed by the Rent Controller, the Rent Control Tribunal and the High Court.
On 30th September, 1976, the appellant landlady and the respondent tenant appeared before Shri M.A. Khan, Additional Rent Controller for creation of a tenancy under s. 21 of the Act.
I am of the view that the order dated 30.9.75 granting permission was number in accordance with law and that the applicant petitioner is number entitled to obtain possession of the premises in dispute under section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
Dr. L.M. Singhvi and Dalveer Bhandari for the Appellant.
1319 of 1990.
Dr. Y.S. Chitale and A.K. Sangal for the Respondent.
The Additional Rent Controller entertained the objection and dismissed the landladys petition for being put into possession.
B 2/104, Safderjung Enclave, New Delhi companyprising of drawing cum dining hall, two bed rooms with attached bath room, kitchen, parking place and a small lawn delineated in the enclosed plan Ex.
The Additional Rent Controller recorded the statements of both the landlady and the prospective tenant and made the following order Having regard to the facts stated in the petition and the statement of the parties made above permission under section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act is granted to Yamuna Maloo applicant to let out ground floor of her premises No.
99/1987.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATH MISRA, J. Special Leave granted.
AI, to Mr.Anand Swarup respondent for residential purposes for a limited period of two years with effect from 1.10.76.
