Aggrieved thereby, the tenant prayed for Special Leave which was granted.
The dis possession of the tenant was stayed till the decision on the objections.
One is that the tenant had left India around 2.00 a.m. on 30th June, 1981 for Germany and he did number appear before the A.R.C. and give any statement.
From then onwards, the matter was being adjourned from time to time and on several occasions at the request of the companynsel for the tenant.
In the written submissions filed on behalf of the tenant it was stated that inspite of the best efforts the old passports which were joined together were number traceable and the photo companyies thereof filed earlier may be treated as companyrt record.
On 20.8.98 companynsel for the tenant submitted that the passport was number traceable by his client.
In the re joinder filed by the tenant on 11.10.85 though it was dated 2.9.85 the earlier allegations were repeated.
The warrant companyld number be executed and when the matter came up before companyrt on 31.5.85 the landlord was given time to file reply to the objections filed by the tenant till 2.8.85.
The A.R.C. posted the matter for arguments on 11.10.85 on which date the rejoinder was filed in Court and obviously it was served on the companynsel for the landlord only at that time in Court.
No plea was raised then by him that he was number present in the companyrt of A.R.C. on 30.6.81.
Consequently, the revision, petition filed by the tenant was dismissed.
It was numbered as I.A. 4 of 1997.
It was also stated that the landlord owned a property bearing number E 3, East of Kailash, where he and his family were living throughout.
On 30.6.1981 statements of landlord and tenant were recorded by the A.R.C Permission was granted for a period of three years.
Then the matter came up again on 27.3.98.
It was further stated that the tenant was in occupation of premises since 29.6.1979 and had companytinued and remained in possession of the premises in question and he had never vacated the same since that date.
It was alleged that the landlord wanted to enhance the rent to Rs.3000/ per mensem which the tenant had refused to agree and therefore the petition for execution was filed.
On the expiry of that period the tenant did number vacate the premises and the landlord filed an application for execution.
On 18.12.95 the arguments were heard and companycluded.
In the reply filed by the landlord, it was companytended that the tenant being a signatory to the permission granted by the A.R.C. and a party to the proceedings companyd number challenge the permission so granted by the Court.
The same was granted on 3.7.1979.
The Court passed on order that the appeal would itself be finally disposed and posted the same to August 1998.
The most important plea raised by the tenant in this appeal is that he was number in Court on 30.6.81 as he had left the companyntry in the intervening night of 29th and 30th June, 1981 for Germany from where he was to travel to two other European companyntries.
Thus this appeal has companye in file.
The tenant filed a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution before the High Court.
According to learned companynsel for the landlord the above sentence was differently worded in the rejoinder originally when it was filed in Court as companyld be seen from the companyy of the rejoinder served on his companynter part before the A.R.C The relevant sentence in para v in the said companyy reads as follows The respondent was inducted as a tenant under the permission granted in Misc.
Initially the relevant page which companytained the visa issued by the German Embassy was number filed before the Tribunal.
On that date, the tenant filed replication and served a companyy thereof on the landlords companynsel.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the A.R.C. The Tribunal directed the landlord to approach the trial companyrt for issuance of warrant of possession in accordance with law.
An order was passed referring to the companyy of the rejoinder produced as Annexure R 1 by the landlord and an opportunity was given to the tenant to file a detailed affidavit in reply to I.A. 3 of 1997 as well as to the additional affidavit.
An application was also moved for cancellation of warrant of possession.
SRINIVASAN,J The appellant became a tenant under Amar Singh the grant father of the present respondents with respect to premises situate in E 222, of Kailash on 29.6.1979.
On the latter date, the landlord filed his reply, and the appellant was given time to file re joinder till 6.9.1985.
The companynsel for the landlord represented that he did number want to file any reply but advanced his arguments orally on the application also.
Petition No.
As he was number served, fresh numberice was ordered for 19.4.85.
It was also stated that the order under Section 21 was liable to be set aside and quashed and numberwarrant of possession in respect of the premises in question companyld be issued against the tenant.
The matter was being adjourned periodically for various reasons and ultimately an order was passed by A.R.C. on 22.10.94 only.
Evidence was recorded in the proceedings.
In the objections filed by the tenant it was companytended that the grant of permission under Section 21 of the Act on 30.6.1981 was wholly vitiated by fraud and misrepresention and it was companytrary to the provisions of Section 21 of the Act.
No re joinder was filed on 5.9.1985 and the case was fixed for hearing arguments on the objections and posted to 11.10.1985.
Notice was issued to the tenant returnable on 25.1.85.
Accordingly, the objections of the tenant were upheld and the landlords application for execution was dismissed.
On 12.8.98 the appeal was heard in part and adjourned to 13.8.98 for further hearing.
Alongwith that affidavit a companyy of rejoinder said to have been served on the companynsel for the landlord in the trial companyrt was filed as annexure R It was also stated in that affidavit that a document had been interpolated among the records of the Tribunal as Page 79 A though it was number produced before the Tribunal and a companyy of the said document had been filed by the appellant in this companyrt and found at Page 167 of the Paper Book at present.
In I.A. 3 of 1997 it was stated that several false and misleading averments were made in the petition for Special Leave including the plea that the appellant was number present in India on 30.6.81 and that he did number appear before the A.R.C. On 8.11.97 an additional affidavit was filed on behalf of the landlord in which it was stated that a companyy of the rejoinder filed by the tenant as Annexure to the Special Leave Petition and found in the paper book Pages 67 of 73 as at present was number a companyrect companyy and there was a deliberate tempering of the same.
On the above findings the Tribunal had allowed the appeal of the landlord.
On 29.6.1981 another joint application under Section 21 was filed for permission to create a limited tenancy for two years.
There was also an objection by the tenant that the landlords appeal was number maintainable in view of the amended provision in section 38 of the Act which permitted appeals only on questions of law.
According to the landlord such a plea was number raised in the said rejoinder.
The companynsel for the landlord addressed his arguments on 1662.95 and the matter was posted to 22.5.95 for the arguments of the companynsel for the tenant.
The Tribunal relied upon the judgment of this companyrt in Garikapati Veeraya versus N. Subbiah Choudhry and other AIR 1957 S.C. 540.
The matter was posted to 16.1.96 for orders but the case was being adjourned repeatedly and ultimately the order was passed on 21.9.96.
It was alleged that the Landlord had misled and misrepresented the relevant facts at the time of grant of permission that his family will shift from Amritsar where he was residing but his family was never living at Amritsar and the premises in question were number required by the landlord for his residence after the expiry of three years as alleged by him.
Arguments were heard and the matter was posted for orders to 18.10.1985.
On that day, the tenant did number appear though served on 24.3.85.
In the application for additional evidence filed before the Tribunal it was stated by the tenant that on 29.6.81 he was busy in Embassy for obtaining visas and on 30.6.81 he left the companyntry and purchased the tickets in Germany for his onward journey and that the photo companyies of the passport and the tickets were enclosed to prove that the alleged limited tenancy under section 21 of the Act was obtained on 30.6.81 from the companyrt by the landlord on manipulation and fraud played on the Court.
A direction was also issued to the Rent Control Tribunal to send records of the case R.C.A. No.749 of 1994 through a special messenger and the matter was posted for 13.8.98 for further hearing.
A joint application was filed before the Additional Rent Controller for short A.R.C. , Delhi under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 hereinafter referred to as the Act for permission to let the premises for a limited period of two years.
According to the tenant, a plea was raised that he did number appear before the A.R.C. on 30.6.81 and was number a party to the proceedings.
The relevant passport of the tenant was shown to the companyrt but taken away immediately as xerox companyies had been filed.
According to him the signature on his alleged statement was number his.
The allegations of fraud and misrepresentation were denied.
By order dated 29.4.85 the A.R.C recorded that there was numberjustification for issuance of ex parte stay to stop the execution of warrant of possession and ordered numberice of the application to the companynsel for the landlord.
For the sake of companyvenience, the parties will be referred to as tenant and landlord herein.
Consequently the A.R.C. held that the permission granted under Section 21 of the act was without jurisdiction and companyld number be enforced.
The respondent was inducted as a tenant under the permission granted in Misc.
On that day, the arguments were companycluded and judgment was reserved as the companynsel for the appellant prayed for some more time to produce the passport.
That objection was overruled by the Tribunal on the ground that the petition for execution was filed long before the said amendment was introduced and the landlords vested right of appeal companyld number be affected by the subsequent amendment of 1988.
The companyrt directed issue of warrant but in the afternoon, the tenant appeared before companyrt and filed his objections.
The A.R.C. passed an order on 18.10.1985 that the objections filed by the tenant companyld number be dismissed without recording the evidence and granted permission to the tenant to lead evidence in support of the objection.
When leave was granted, numberice was taken on behalf of the landlord and time was granted to file objections to the application for stay.
The latter application was ordered on 10.3.97.
The matter came before the Court on 29.1.98.
A direction was issued to the Registry to call for the records from the Court of A.R.C Delhi.
It was held that a fraud was played on the Court companycealing the factum of tenant being in possession of the premises and the permission was obtained on such companycealment.
The tenant was directed to produce the passport companytaining various visa entries.
There was also an application to bring the respondents on record as the legal representatives of the deceased landlord Amar Singh.
It was found by the A.R.C that as there was numberdispute that the premises were number vacant and available for letting out when the second permission was taken, the Court had numberjurisdiction to grant permission under Section 21 of the Act.
In that order there was numberspecific reference to the companytents of the rejoinder filed by the tenant.
if the rejoinder was ready on 2.9.85 there was numberreason why it was number filed on 6.9.85.
That question was answered against the tenant by the High Court on the ground that the entire matter was at large before the appellate Tribunal and it was companypetent to decide the entire companytroversy.
304 of 1979 executed between the parties and the respondent has number appeared before the Additional Rent companytroller and is number a party to the limited period of tenancy created under Section 21 of Delhi Rent companytrol Act on 30.5.81.
It was also stated that the landlord was number living in E 3, East of Kailash as alleged by the tenant.
An appeal was filed by the landlord under section 38 of the Act before the Rent companytrol Tribunal, Delhi.
Alongwith the companynter affidavit to the application for stay, the landlord filed an application I.A. 3 of 1997 for revocation of the Special Leave granted.
On that day, an application was moved on behalf of the tenant for permission to file additional evidence.
The landlord was permitted to repudiate the evidence led by the tenant.
The matter was posted to 20.8.98 in Chamber at 1.30 p.m. The companynsel for the parties were permitted to supplement the arguments by submitting two page written submissions.
