INDER MOHAN LAL versus RAMESH KHANNA

Citation: [1987] 3 S.C.R. 765 · Decided: 04-08-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
.... 
INDER MOHAN LAL 
v. 
RAMESH KHANNA 
AUGUST 4, 1987 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND S. NATARAJAN, JJ.] 
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958: s. 21-Requirements of-Permi-
ssion to let out premises for limited period-Validity of-Reason for 
landlord's non-requirement of premises-Whether to be stated-
Agreement in writing-Whether to be registered. 
'( 
Practice & Procedure: View taken by the High Court over a 
number of years-Should normally be adhered to. 
The appellant made an application before the Rent Controller on 
or about July 15, 1976 to let out the premises to the respondent for 
residential purposes for a period of two years under s. 21 of the Delhi 
Rent Control Act, 1958 as he did not require the premises for that 
period. The respondent agreed before the Rent Controller to the above 
statement of the appellant and undertook to vacate the premises after 
the expiry of two years from July 15, 1976. Accordingly, the Rent 
Controller made an order allowing creation of a limited tenancy for a 
period of two years from July 15, 1976. The respondent having refused 
to vacate the premises after two years, the appellant filed an application 
under s. 21 on behalf of himself and his family members claiming 
possession of the premises for their bona fide need and use. The Rent 
Controller passed an eviction order and the Appellate Tribunal upheld 
the same. 
The High Court allowing the appeal of the tenant-respondent held 
that the order under s. 21 of the Act was a mindless order inasmuch as 
no reason had been stated as to why the premises in question was not 
required for a limited period, that it was not stated as to bow the 
premises in question was dealt with before creating the said tenancy and 
that there was no writing and no lease registered after the permission 
was granted. 
Allowing the appeal by special leave, 
765 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
766 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1987] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: 1.1 The permission granted hf the Rent Controller 
B 
under s. 21 of the Delhi R<>nt Control Act was valid. The order permit-
ting limited tenancy was not a mindless order but one passed by him 
after taking the relevant factS into consideration. (7800 I 
1.2 In order to attract s. 21 of the Act, it is necessary firstly 
that the landlord must not require the premises either in whole or 
part for a particular period; secondly, the landlord must obtain the 
permission of the Controller in the prescribed manner; thirdly, letting 
of the whole or part of the premises must be for residence, and fourthly 
such letting out must he for such period as may he agreed· in writing. 
These and these alone are the conditions which are required to he 
c fulfilled. [772G-773B] 
1.3 Section 21 only gives sanction if the landlord makes a state-
ment to the satisfaction of the Court and the tenant accepts that the 
landlord does not require the premises for a limited period. This state-
ment of the landlord must be bona fide. The purpose must he residence. 
D There must not he any fraud or collusion. There is a presumption of 
regularity. But it is open in particular facts and circumstances of the 
case to prove to the satisfaction of the executing court that there was 
collusion m· conspiracy between the landlord and the tenant and the 
landlord did not mean what he said or that it was a fraud or that the 
tenant agreed because he was wholly unequal to the landlord. [776F-H] 
E 
1.4 In the instant case there was no permission previously. This 
was the first letting. There was no evidence that when the landlord 
stated that he did not require the premises in question for a particular 
period, he did not mean what he said or that he made a false statement. 
There was no evidence at any stage that the tenant did not understand 
F what the landlord was stating or that he did not accept what the land-
lord stated. There was no evidence that either the tenant was in collu-
sion or perpetrating any fraud with the landlord or the tenant was 
unequal to the landlord in bargaining powers. There was thus uo evi-
dence to show that the Controller did not apply his mind. [779F, 776H-777B] 
G 
S.B. Noronah v. Prem Kumari Khanna, [1980) 1 S.C.R. 281; 
~ 
H 
Nagindas Ramdass v. Dalpatram Ichharam, [1974) 2 SCR 544; V.S. 
Rahi and anotherv. Smt. Ram Chambeli, [1984) 2 SCR 290;J.R. Vohra 
v. India Export House Pvt. Ltd. and another, [ 1985) 2 SCR 899 and 
Smt. Dhanwantiv. D.D. Gupta, [1986] 3 SCC 1, referred to 
2. It is not necessary to state under s. 21 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.