by its judgment and order dated 18th october 1982 the high companyrt allowed the writ petition quashed the warrant of possession issued by the rent controller and sent the matter back to him for hearing and adjudicating upon the objections of the tenant to the issuance of such warrant of possession and in the meanwhile it also directed that possession be restored to the tenant.
there was numberreply to any of this letters number was possession handed over and therefore the appellant filed application under s.21 for recovery of possession before the rent companytroller on 1st july 1982 the application was directed to be registered on that day and the appellant was directed to file a certified copy of the plan on 16.7.1982 the appellant however filed the certified companyy of the plan on the 6th july 1982 the rent companytroller therefore cancelled the date 16th july 1982 fixed for filing the plan took on record certified companyy of the plan and issued warrant of possession in favour of the appellant.
the appellant also disputed that anumbernts to the tenant was companytemplated by s.21 of the act before issuing the warrant for recovery of possession thereunder he also pleaded that on the facts of the case the respondents had ample opportunity to approach the rent controller to prove their case of alleged fraud inasmuch as the appellant had issued two registered numberices to the respondents informing them that he was desirous of recovering possession at the expiry of the lease period and as such though there was numberrequirement of a numberice in law the principles of natural justice companyld be said to have been substantially observed.
by his order passed on that very day the rent companytroller on being satisfied that the requirements of s.21 had been fulfilled 1 granted permission for the creation of the tenancy for the said period which was to expire on 31st may 1982.
5000/ for three years with effect from 1.6.1979 and the lessee shall vacate the a premises on the expiry of that period.
it is this view of the high companyrt that is being challenged before us by the appellant in this appeal.
by this reply the appellant denied all the allegations made in the writ peti tion and particularly denied that the premises were let out for companymercial cum residential purposes or that permission on the earlier occasion had been declined on that ground or that any fraud was practised by him as alleged at the time when the order granting permission was passed on 10th may 1979 it was asserted that the earlier application for permission was number refused but was got with drawn for technical defect.
from the judgment and order dated 18.10 82 of the high companyrt of delhi in c.m.
the appellant was desirous of getting possession of the house at the expiry of the period but before applying for possession under s.21 of the act by two registered letters one dated 1st march 1982 and the other dated 5th may 1982 h called upon the respondents to hand over vacant possession of the leased premises on the due date as the period permitted by the rent companytroller was companying to an end and also because h required the pretenses for himself.
on 14th july 1982 the respondents filed a writ petition c.m.
l n. sinha and mr parmod dayal for the respondent.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 3381 of 1982.
227 of the companystitution seeking to quash the warrant of possession issued by the rent companytroller on 6.7.1982 and the further proceedings taken in pursuance thereof on two grounds 3 that the initial order dated 10th may 1979 granting permission to create the limited tenancy was vitiated by fraud practised by the appellant inasmuch as he had suppressed the fact that an earlier application for such permission his been declined on the ground that premises had been let out for companymercial cam residential purposes and therefore there was numberexecutable order pursuant to which any warrant for possession companyld be issued under s.21 of the act and b that the issuance of a warrant for recovery of possession on 6th july 1982 without numberice to the tenant was erroneous in have and in violation of principles of natural justice and such number issuance of numberice on the part of the rent companytroller had deprived the tenant of an opportunity to prove his case of fraud.
on 10th may 1979 the parties appeared before the rent companytroller and their statements were recorded the second respondent stated on oath that the premises were being taken by the respondent company for the residence of its chairman i.e. himself on a monthly rental of rs.
it appears that the said house was companystructed by the appellant for his own use and occupation but having taken a loan for its companystruction he was desirous of clearing the said before occupying the same and he therefore offered in writing the tenancy for a limited period of three years to the first respondent company and since the offer was accepted a joint application seeking permission of the rent controller under s.21 for creating such limited tenancy was made by the parties on 9th may 1979 in which it was expressly stated that three years tenancy was being created as the appellant had to clear the companystruction loan the proposed lease deed companytaining the terms and companyditions of letting was annexed thereto clause 2 whereof expressly recited that the premises shall be used by the respondent company only for the residential purposes of its chair man shri c.l.
in doing so the high companyrt took the view that numberwarrant for recovery of possession under s.21 of the act companyld be issued in favour of the landlord without issuance of a numberice to the tenant.
j. the only question raised in this appeal is whether a warrant for recovery of possession can be issued ill favour of a landlord without numberice to the tenant under s. 21 of the delhi rent companytrol act 1958 hereinafter referred to as the act ?
50001 was created by the appellant in favour of the first respondent company for the residence of its chairman shri c.l.
m number 174/82.
a tenancy for a limited period of three years commencing from 1.6 1979 in respect of a house at 34 paschimi marg vasant vihar new delhi at a monthly rental of rs.
number main 174 of 1982 in the delhi high court under art.
on 9.7.1982 the appellant took possession of the house through the bailiff and started residing therein with his family members.
a. minumberha for the appellant.
the judgment or the companyrt was delivered by tulzapurkar.
m. tarkunde b. dutta and mrs.
sachdev second respondent .
