It was in those circum stances that the appellant had decided to let out the suit premises for a limited period of two years only.
The Rent Control Appellate Tribunal upheld the eviction order.
The appellant filed an application on 6th November, 1978 for eviction of the respondent as the respondent had refused to vacate the premises in spite of his statement made before the Rent Controller.
It was stated in the application for permission that it was agreed to be let out for the first time and secondly, it was stated that the appellant owned newly built house.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the respondent preferred an appeal to the Rent Control Appellate Tribunal.
The appellant had also stated in that application, that the appellant had agreed to let it out to the respondent for the first time on the terms and companyditions set out in the proposed lease deed for a period of two years.
It was stated that the respondent had heard the statement and recorded that he had numberobjec tion and would vacate the premises after expiry of two years.
Limited tenancy under section 21 of the Act may be allowed to be created for the said period.
I have numberobjec tion.
The respondent agreed to the aforesaid statement and stated as follows I have heard the statement of the petitioner and I accept it as companyrect.
The High Court was of the view that there was numberinquiry for the Controller to companye to the companyclusion on the basis of the material that the premises for which the permission was sought for creating a limited tenancy was in fact available for being let for a limited period only and in the absence of that, this was a mindless order.
The purpose of letting shall be residential only and the premises are shown in the site plan Ex.
374 of 1980.
468 of 1987.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.7.
Furthermore, he was satisfied that a limited tenancy had been created and as such he granted permission for eviction.
It may be material to refer to the fact that the appellant in his application under section 21 of the Rent Act had stated as follows 1 do number require the premises for a period of two years from 15.7.76.
The appellant had further stated that he did number require the premises for the personal residence for a period of two years.
Subsequently, when the second appeal was pending in the Delhi High Court, the appellant had filed an application for early hearing in which he had stated that when the companystruction of the house in question was companypleted the appellants father R.B. Nanak Chand, advocate, was old and alone the appellants mother had died earlier and other brother and sister being away from Delhi and in view of his fathers ailing health the appellant was living with him in the rented premises at 4 Flag Staff Road, Delhi to look after his old and ailing father.
The Rent Controller after hearing both the parties on the 4th of January, 1980 held, rejecting the companytention of the respondent, that section 21 of the Rent Act was number ultra vires.
On or about the 19th of July, 1985, being further ag grieved, the respondent preferred a second appeal before the High Court of Delhi.
1985 of the Delhi High Court in Second Appeal No.
Upon this the Rent Controller passed the following order This is an application filed under section 21 of the Act for permission to create limited tenancy for a period of two years from 15.7.76.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The appellant filed an application on the said date under section 21 of the Rent Act on behalf of himself and his family members claiming possession of the premises for their bona fide need and use.
I shall vacate the premises after the expiry of two years from 15.7.76.
The purpose of letting shall be residential only.
The appellant companytended that he the appellant was a retired official and was living in a rented house while the respondent was a rich man doing business in jewellery and was also owning a house in Delhi.
From the perusal of the statements of the parties I am satisfied that as at present the petitioner does number require the premises.
Dr. L.M. Singhvi, K.B. Rohtagi, Praveen Jain and Baldev Atreya for the Respondent.
The purpose of letting shall be residential only and the premises is shown in the site plan Ex.
The proposed agreement is Ex.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This appeal by special leave is from the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi dated 19th of July, 1985.
Madan Bhatia, N.D.B. Raju and Vineet Kumar for the Appellant.
Therefore, limited tenancy is al lowed to be created for a period of two years from 15.7.76.
The Rent Controller after recording the statements of the appellant and the respondent made an order permitting creation of limited tenancy only for a period of two years for residential purposes to which the respondent had agreed upon.
It may be mentioned that the appellants father died two months after the Rent Controller had granted permission.
The proposed agreement is Ex.
The appellant had.
In the application made under section 21 of the Rent Act the appellant had stated that the appellant owned a newly built house in the New Friends Colony companyprising of dining, drawing, three bed rooms with attached bath rooms, a study room, family lounge and a garage.
made an application on or about 15th of July, 1976 before the Rent Controller to let out the premises for a period of two years under section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 hereinafter called the Rent Act .
