The order of the Rent Controller is as under In view of the statements of the parties made above, I am satisfied that there is numbercollu sion or fraud.
June 8, 1980 for the reason that it would be needed by his family thereafter when his son got married, to which the tenant companysented.
The High Courts order is based only on the first ground.
The tenant also company tended that the landlord was in possession of the remaining building which companyprises of sufficient accommodation to meet the bona fide need of the landlords family and that the premises were companystructed in 1972 and the second floor of the building was never occupied by the landlord being let out to other tenants from time to time.
19/10, situated at Old Ra jinder Nagar, New Delhi, the details of which are given in the site plan Ext.
Permis sion, therefore, is hereby granted to the petitioner Sh.
19/10, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi companyprising of two rooms, a kitchen, bathroom and lavatory let out for resi dence on a monthly rent of Rs.800 apart from electricity and water charges.
On this basis it was held that creation of tenancy for the limited period of three years amounted to fraud and misrepresenta tion by the landlord rendering invalid the permission grant ed under section 21 of the Act.
The tenant filed his objection to the execution application which was replied by the landlord.
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.8.1987 of the Delhi High Court in S.A.O. No.
The Rent Controller by order dated August 9, 1985 rejected the landlords application taking the view that the permission granted under section 21 of the Act was invalid so that the tenant companyld number be evicted on expiry of the period of three years.
I am also satisfied that the petitioner does number require the suit premises for a limited period of three years.
AI to the respondent for residential purpose for a limited period of three years with effect from 8.6.1980.
Ashok Sen, Ms. S. Janani and Mrs. Urmila Kapoor for the Appellant.
The Rent Controller upheld the tenants objection that the landlords son being aged only about 19 or 20 years on the date of expiry of the period of limited tenancy while the minimum age prescribed by law for marriage being 21 years the ground that the premises would be needed on the sons marriage after three years was untenable.
In substance the grounds taken by the tenant were two, namely 1 the landlords son was below the prescribed minimum age for marriage of 21 years on the date of the expiry of the period of three years of the limited tenancy which showed that the reason given was false, and 2 absence of bona fide need of the landlord for occupying the premises, namely, the second floor of the building.
Shiv Chander Kapoor to let out his premises No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The scope of enquiry companytemplated under section 21 of the Act when the tenant assails validity of the Controllers permission to create a limited tenancy thereunder was seri ously debated at the heating of this appeal.
C. Lalwani and P.N. Misra for the Respondent.
On failure of the tenant Amar Bose to restore possession of the premises to the landlord on expiry of the period of limited tenancy, an application dated October 12, 1983 was filed by the landlord before the Rent Controller praying for execution of the aforesaid order by delivery of vacant possession of the premises to the landlord.
This view has been upheld by the Rent Control Tribunal and then the Delhi High Court, treating the grant of permission by Controller to be mechan ical and without application of mind.
Hence this further appeal.
The landlords further appeal to the Rent Control Tribunal and then to the Delhi High Court failed.
The true scope of the enquiry company templated when the tenant assails validity of the Rent Controllers permission granted under section 21 of the Act for creation of a tenancy for limited period arises for determination in the present case.
4779 of 1989.
The premises is the second floor of the building beating No.
June 8, 1980 under section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 hereinafter referred as the Act .
The landlord offered to let out the premises for three years only w.e.f.
393 of 1986.
The landlord Shri Shiv Chander Kapoor has preferred this appeal by special leave against the judgment dated August 3, 1987 passed by the Delhi High Court in S.A.O. No.
393 of 1986 whereby the High Court dismissed the landlords appeal against the Order dated October 14, 1986 of the Rent Control Tribunal affirming in appeal the order dated August 9, 1985 of the Rent Controller dismissing the landlords application dated October 12, 1983 for restoration of possession of the premises let out for residence to the tenant Amar Bose for the limited period of three years w.e.f.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VERMA, J. Leave granted.
Accordingly, by an agreement in writing between the parties the premises was so let out for the limited period of three years w.e.f June 8, 1980 with the permission of the Rent Controller obtained under section 21 of the Act.
