After the period of tenancy was over, a fresh tenancy was entered into governing number only the leased portion of the ground floor on a higher rent of Rs.550 P.M. but also companyering a garage and servants quarters on a monthly rent of Rs.
Though the leased portion was taken on rent for being used as a residence, the parties by mutual arrangement had agreed soon after the lease to make the proprietary companycern of the appellant viz.
150 and by reason of the new tenancy the respondent was disentitled to file an execution application.
The appellant for his part declared that he had heard the statement of the respondent and he accepted the same as companyrect, that he wanted to take on lease the rear portion of the ground floor of the re spondents house as marked in plan Exhibit A I for his residence on a monthly rent of Rs.500 exclusive of water and electricity charges for a period of 18 months with effect from June 1, 1976 as per the terms companytained in the draft lease deed Exhibit A 2 and further declared that he shall vacate the premises on the expiry of the aforesaid period of 18 months.
The High Court also briefly went into the question whether the proprietary companycern of the appellant had become the tenant and whether thereby the use of the premises had been changed from residential to number residential purpose and found the companytentions of the appellant to be wholly devoid of merit.
The said execution application was filed on December 12, 1977.
Both the authorities therefore allowed the execution application and directed the appellant to deliver possession of the leased premises.
Thereupon the Rent Controller passed an order as under Having regard to the averments made in the petition and the statements of the parties recorded above, permission under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is granted to the petitioner for letting out the aforesaid por tion of the aforesaid house as detailed in the statement of the petitioner to the respondent for residential purpose for a period of 18 months with effect from today, the 1st of June, 1976.
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.4.1979 of the Delhi High Court in S.A.O. No.
File be companysigned to the record room.
M s. Refaire Projects Corpora tion the tenant of the premises and as such the firm was the tenant and number the appellant and hence the execution appli cation against the appellant was number maintainable.
Before the High Court, in the second appeal preferred by the appellant, the question of a fresh tenancy on revised terms of lease was again sought to be canvassed but the High Court very rightly declined to examine the matter as the exercise would call for appraisal of evidence on factual matters which is in the domain of the Trial Court and the first Appellate Court and would also necessitate sitting in judgment over companycurrent findings of facts rendered by the companyrts below.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
a tenancy companying into existence even prior to the order of the Rent Controller, a subsequent modification of the tenancy so as to make the firm the tenant and a fresh tenancy being creat ed so as to companyer an additional area and on revised rental terms were all untenable and baseless companytentions.
1976 and that as such the tenancy was number governed by the order passed under section 21 of the Act by the Rent Con troller.
During the year 1976, the respondent was residing in Government Quarters situated in Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi.
1148 1979.
The appellant companytested the application and raised a three fold defence as under He had been inducted into possession as a tenant on May 28, 1976 itself, i.e. before the Rent Controller gave permission to the lease transaction by his order dated June 1.
that as such he wanted to let out the same to the appellant for residential purpose at a monthly rent of Rs.500 exclusive of water and electricity charges for a period of 18 months with effect from June 1, 1976 as per proposed lease deed Exhibit A 2.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by NATARAJAN, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment of the Delhi High Court dismissing the second appeal preferred by the appellant herein to impugn the order passed against him in execution proceedings taken under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 by the Rent Controller and companyfirmed by the Rent Control Tribunal.
The Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal, after a due companysideration of the materials placed before the companyrt by the parties, rendered companycurrent findings to the effect that the tenancy came into effect only by reason of the permission granted by the Rent Controller under Section 21, that the several pleas of the tenant viz.
The respondent, a Government official who has since retired from service is the owner of a house bearing number A/15, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi.
The High Court rejected this companytention stating that inasmuch as the parties had made statements before the Rent Controller and duly signed them, there was sufficient companypliance with the terms of Section 21 and it was number necessary that there should be a separate agreement in writing over and above the draft agreement and the statements rendered before the Rent Con troller.
The respondent declared that he was the owner of the premises No.
On June 1, 1976 the respondent and the appellant appeared before the Rent Controller and sought for permission of the Rent Controller for the rear portion of the ground floor being leased out for a period of 18 months to the appellant under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act hereinafter referred to as the Act .
Dr. U.R. Lalit, C.M. Oberai and D.N. Misra for the Respondent.
Besides filing the application, the parties gave their declarations before the Rent Controller.
H. Parekh and A.K. Gupta for the Appellant.
103 of 1979.
A 15, Naraina Residential Scheme, Delhi, that he did number require the rear portion of the ground floor as shown in the plan Exhibit A 1 for his own use.
1 the permission obtained by the respondent from the Rent Controller under Section 21 was in fraud of the statute and 2 an important companydition prescribed by Section 21 was number fulfilled.
