J.R. VOHRA versus INDIA EXPORT HOUSE PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1985] 2 S.C.R. 899 · Decided: 14-02-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.D. TULZAPURKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-.--
•~ . 
• 
899 
J.R. VOHRA 
v 
INDIA EXPORT HOUSE PVT. 
LTD. AND ANOTHER 
14th February, 1985 
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 section 21 read with section 37 and Rule 
5 of Delhi Rent Control Rules, 1959, scope of-Limited tenancy created with 
permission of the Rent Controller under section 2J-Whether a warrant for 
recovery of posse1sion can be issued In faYour of a landlord wtthOut notice to 
the tenant under section 21. 
A tenancy for a limited period of three years commencing from 
1.6. 79 in respect of a house at 34, Pascbimi Marg, Vasaot Vihar, New 
Delhi at a monthly rental of Rs. 51000 was created by the appe11ant in 
favour of the first respondent company for the residence of its Chairman, 
Shri C.L. Sachdev after obtaining the requisite permission under section 21 
or tho Delhi Rent Control Act. In the application filed before the Rent 
Controller and io the proposed lea11e·dccd it was specificaUy stated that the· 
appellant landlord in order to clear the loan taken by him for the construc-
tion of the premises was creating the limited tenancy for a period of three 
years. The appellant was desirous of getting pos1ession of the house at the 
expiry of the period i.e. 31st May, 198l but before applyina for posacssioo 
v.nder section 21 of the Act, by two registered letters one dated 1st March, 
198l and the other dated Sth M.iy, 198l ho called upon the respondents to 
band over vacant possession of the leased premisoa on the due date. The 
respondent neither replied these letters nor did handover possession. 
Therefore, the appellant filed an application under section 21 for recovery 
of possession before the Rent Controller on 1st July, 1982. On 9 ,7,82 the 
appellant took possession of the house through the bailiff and started resid-
ing therein with his family members. 
On 14th July 1982 tho respondents filed 
a writ petition (CM No. 
(Main) 174 of 1982) in the Delhi High Court under Article 227 of the 
Constitution seeking to quash the warrant of possessior. issued by the Rent 
Controller on 6.7.1982 and-further proceedings taken in pursuance thereof 
on two grounds: (a) that the initial order dated 10th May, 1979 granting 
permission to create the limited tenancy was vitiated by fraud practised by 
the aPpcllant in as much as he had suppressed the fact that an earlier 
application for such permission has been declined on the ground that 
premises had been let out for commercial-cum-residential purposes and 
therefore, there was no executable order pursuant to which any w<1rraot for 
possession could bt issued under section 21 of the Act and (b) that the 
issuance of a warrant for recovery of possession on 6th July 1982 without 
notice to the tenant was erroneous in law and in violation of the 
princi~Ie1 
of natural justice and such nonissuance of notice on the part of the Rent 
Controller bad deprived the tenant of an opportunity to prove his case of 
fraud. By his reply the appellant denied all the allegation made in the Writ 
Petition. 
A 
B 
c 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
ll 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
II 
900 
SUPREMB COURT REPORTS 
[1985) 2 s.c.a. 
The High Court took the view that no warrant for recovery of 
possession under section 21 of the Act would be issued in favour of the 
landlord without issuance of a notice to the tenant, and by its judgment and 
order dated 18lh October, 1982 allowed the writ petition, quashed the 
warrant of possession issued by the Rent Controller and sent the matter 
back to him for hearing and adjudicating upon the objections of the tenant 
to the issuance of such warrant of possession and in the meanwhile it also 
directed that possession be restored to the tenant. Hence the appeal by 
special leave. 
A Bowing the appeal, t be Court, 
HELD : 1.J. Neither section 21 and 37 of the Delhi Rent Control 
Act 1958 nor the Rules framed under the Act require service of aoy prior 
notice upon the tenant before he is evicted and in the instant case, the 
order directin issuance of warrant of possession under section 21 without 
prior notice to the tenant, for the purpose of putting the landlord in 
possession of the leased premises at the expiry of the limited tenancy 
cannot be regarded as illegal, invalid or unwarranted. (908 E~F] 
J.2. An analysis of section 21 of tbe Delhi Rent Control Act will 
show that iu regard to tenancies fer limited period mentioD.ed therein only 
two orders are contemplated; (i) an order by the Rent ControHer sanctioning 
or permitting the creation of a tenancy for a pa

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