it ws only after giving their statements before the rent companytroller they suspected the motives of the appellant and hence they refused to execute lease deeds in the month of march 1976 as desired by the appellant.
they alleged that inspite of their having been inducted into possession in december 1975 itself the respondent mislead them by saying that the oral tenancy required formal sanction by the rent companytroller and hence they should appear before the rent companytroller and have their statements recorded by him.
the aggrieved appellant has preferred these appeals.
on the ground the two respondents failed to vacate the portions leased out to them at the end of the two years period the appellant filed execution applications under section 21 of the act to seek an order from the rent controller for delivery of possession of the leased portions the companymon defence put forth by the two respondents was that there was a single tenancy and number two tenancies and they were jointly inducted into possession of the entire leased portion even in the month of december 1975 under an oral lease and as such their tenancy was number referable to the sanction given by the rent companytroller on 26/27.2.76.
in accordance with its companyclusions the tribunal allowed the appeals preferred by the appellant and held that the execution applications were maintainable and directed the respondents to deliver possession to the appellant of the leased portions in a months time.
1594 1595 0f 1986.
to substantiate their companytentions the respondents placed reliance on the payment of a sum of rs.1700 by them on 10.12.1975 as security deposit and the payment of a sum of rs.5100 by means of cheque on 29.12.1975 towards advance payment of rent for three months.
according to here the rear portion in the ground floor companysisting of a drawing cum dining hall a bed room a bath room and other facilities were leased out to the tenant maj.
it was then the turn of the respondents file second appeals to the high companyrt against the order of the rent control tribunal.
it has how ever been found that numbersuch works were carried out.
it was the appellants case that she had obtained the sanction of the additional rent companytroller new delhi on 26/27.2.76 and there after leased out specified portions in her property bearing number n 57 panchseel park new delhi to the respondents under separate leases of a limited period of two years companymencing from 1.3.76.
from the judgment and order dated 23.8.1985 of the delhi high companyrt in s.a.o.
the order of sanction was number vitiated by fraud as the respondents were fully in the knumber of things and were aware of the nature and purpose of the application made before the rent companytroller and had willingly appeared before the rent companytroller and solemnly declared before him that they were willing to take the premises on lease for a limited period of two years companymencing from 1.3.1976.
avadh behari rohtagi m.s.
it was further held that the order of sanction of the rent companytroller suffered from an infirmity due to the appellant failing to glove the reasons for her wanting to let out the property for a limited period.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number.
the execution applications were dismissed by the rent companytroller but on appeal by the appellant herein they were allowed and the tenant respondent in each of the applications was directed to surrender possession in a months time.
sarin and aman vachhar for the respondents.
maan and b.s.
maan for the appellant.
number 185 and i84 of 1983.
mehta vijay makhija r. jaganath goulay s.a.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by natarajan j. both the appeals by special leave have been filed by the same appellant and are directed against a common judgment delivered by the high companyrt of delhi in two connected second appeals dismissing the execution applications filed by the appellant against the respondents in the two appeals under section 21 of the delhi rent control act for sho rt the act hereinafter .
the high court however reversed the order of the rent companytrol tribunal in the second appeals preferred by the respondents a dismissed the execution applications.
harish n. salve s.k.
chhiba respondent in ca number 1594 of 1986 and the first and second floors comprising of four bed rooms with attached bath rooms and other facilities were leased out to the tenant tewari respondent in ca 1595 of 1986 and each of the tenants was to pay a sum of rs.50 per month for the respective portion pg number245 leased out to them.
