LexJOGINDER KUMAR BUTAN versus R.P. OBEROI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-
•y
JOGINDER KUMAR BUTAN
v.
R.P. OBEROJ
AUGUST 12, 1987
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND S:-NATARAJAN, JJ.]
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958: s. 21-Limited tenancy-Permis-
sion obtained from Rent Controller for short periods-· Whether fraud/
wilful contravention/abuse of statute-Objections not raised during the
term of the lease-Permissibility of-Lease agreement not reduced to
writing-Validity of.
Statutory Interpretation-Local statutes-Law settled by High
Court over a continuous period of time-Normally to be adhered to-
Should not be disturbed.
A
B
c
The respondent, a government official, while residing in Govern-
D
ment quarters sought permission of the Rent Controller under s. 21 of
the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for leasing out a portion of his house
to the appellant for residential purposes for 18 months as he did not
require it for his own use for that period. The appellant declared before
the Rent Controller that he accepted the statement of the respondent
and that he shall vacate the premises on the expiry of the period of 18
E
months. The Rent Controller, thereupon, passed an order granting
permission in terms of the declaration. When after expiry of the
stipulated period the appellant failed to vacate the leased portion, the
respondent tiled an execution application for recovering possession.
The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority rendered con-
current finding to the effect that the tenancy came into effect only by F
reason of the permission granted hy the Rent Controller under s. 21 and
directed the appellant to deliver possession to the respondent.
In second appeal before the High Court it was contended by the
& -
appellant t'iat since the lease agreement was not reduced to writing, as
~'required under s. 21 of the Act, the permission granted by the Rent G
~· ,... /
Controller was not valid. Dismissing the appeal the High Court held
/
1
!{that in as much as the parties had made statements before the Rent
/
.. Controller and duly signed them, there was sufficient compliance with
the terms of s. 2 I and it was not necessary that there should be a
separate agreement in writing over and above the draft agreement and
the statements rendered before the Rent Controller.
H
937
A
B
938
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1987] 3 S.C.R.
In the appeal by special leave, the contention taken before the
High Court was reiterated, and in addition it was contended for the first
time that the permission obtained by the respondent from the Rent
Controller under s. 21 was in fraud of the statute inasmuch as he had
been obtaining such permission on several occasions for short periods In
order to deprive the tenants of their rights under the Act,
Dismissing the appeal,
HELD: I. I A plea pertaining to fraudulent practice is a mixed
question of fact and law. Without the requisite foundation on facts to
prove a wilful contravention or abuse of a provision of law a finding
C cannot be rendered as to whether a party has committed a fraud by
abusing any legal provision, [943FG]
1.2 In the instant case, the appellant had not cross-examined the
respondent with reference to the lease granted earlier by the respondent
to other tenants nor had he adduced independent evidence to prove the
+
D factum of those leases and snch leases being granted by abuse of the
provisions of s. 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. In the absence of }-
factual material to show the abuse or misuse of the provisions of s. 21, it
cannot be said that the respondent had practised fraud on the Rent
Controller in obtaining permission. Besides, even if the respondent had
let out different portions of the building to other tenants on earlier
-
E occasions by having recourse to s. 21 he may have done so on the basis . j
of bona fide grounds and genuine calculations and his calculations may ~ ..
have gone wrong due to factots or events beyond his control. The mere
fact of letting out of the premises once again by resort to s. 21 for
a limited period should not necessarily lead to the inference that from
the very beginning the premises .were available for letting out indefini-
F
tely. [943EF, G-944A, 946A]
Dhanwanti v. D.D. Gupta, (AIR 1986 SC ll84) referred to.
y
1.3 The respondent was a government servant and was li'ving in
Government quarters. He had an apprehension that the said allotment.
G may be cancelled because of his owning a house and so he had to prov,ide Y
~
for any contingencExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.