LexMOHAN SINGH versus LATE AMAR SINGH THROUGH THE LRS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c MOHAN SINGH .• v. LATE AMAR SINGH THROUGH THE LRS. SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 [DR. A.S. ANAND AND M. SRINIVASAN, JJ.] Rent Control and Eviction : Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 : Section 21. Tenancy-For a limited period-Pennission f 01~Tenant raised objec- tion after expi1y of limited pe1iod of tenancy that landlord obtained pemiis- sion by fraud and misrepresentation-Held : Such objection should be raised before the Rent Colllroller/Additional Rent Controller before expiry of limited pe1iod of tenancy and not after its expiiy-171e 'tenant should raise such an D objection immediately after he comes to know of the landlord's fraud and misrepresentation-171ere must be exceptional circumstances for allowing the tenant to raise such a plea after expby of the limited pe1iod of tenancy-Bur- den to prove fraud, collusion, misrepresentation etc. lies on the person alleging it-Jn the facts of the case, no exceptional circumstances made out by the E tenant to enable him to challenge the order of Additional Rent Controller granting pennission for limited pe1iod of tenancy. Tenancy-For a limited pe1iod-Pennission f01~Landlord filed ap- plication for recove1y of possession after expi1y of limited period of tenan- cy-Tenant raised objection at that stage that landlord obtained pe1111ission F for limited pe1iod of tenancy by fraud and misrepresentation-Additional Rent Controller (ARC) granted pennission to the tenant to lead evidence in suppo1t of his objection and allowed the landlord to repudiate such evidence and stayed dispossession of Jhe tenant till the decision on the objec- tion,--Held: Order of ARC is interlocuto1y in nature which would not prevellt G the landlord from contending before the Appellate Tribunal that the tenallt was not entitled to raise objection to the validity of the pem1ission after the expiry of limited period of tenancy. Sections 21 and 38-Tenancy-For a limited period-Pemiission for--Granted initially for two years-After its expiiy landlord and tenant filed H a joint application for a ftuther limited period-Additional Rent Controller 252 - MOHAN SINGH v. LATE AMAR SINGH 253 . (A.R. C.) granted the second pennission after recording statements of landlord and tenant-Landlord filed application under S.21 after expiry of limited peliod of tenancy for recove1y of possession-Tenant raised objectio11 that the second pe11nissio11 was obtained by la11dlord by fraud and misreprese11ta- tion-ARC held that pem1issio11 was without julisdiction and· could not be enf orced--!11 the appeal. by landlord under S. 38 before Re11t Control Tlibunal tenant raised a new plea in his application for additio11al evidence that on the date of grant of the second pennission on the basis of his alleged statement, he had left the cowwy for Gennany which showed that the pem1issio11 for limited tenancy was obtained by lai'ldlord by fraud and mis- representation-Held: Burden is on the tenant to prove he· was not present in co wt on the day when the second pennission was granted but tenant failed to discharge this burden-Fwther, rejoindei"filed by the tena11t before the ARC is tampered with at a later point of time and in all probability when the matter was pe11ding before the Appeilate Tlibzmal i11 order to support the new plea raised by the te11ant for the first time-Moreover, records of ARC and Tlibunal are tampered with by the tenant; visa alleged to have bee11 is.sued by Gennan Embassy to the te11ant and immigration stamp found thereon is not genui11e; tenant also made an attempt to hoodwink the Supreme Cowt and succeeded in getting special leave and order staying dispossession---Registrar of Supreme Court directed to file a complaint before the appropliate cowt and set the e1iminal law in motion against the tenant-Evidet1ce Act, 1872, Ss. 101 and 102-Penal Code, 1860, Ss. 192 and 196. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: A B c D E Eviction suit-Rejoinder-Filing of-By tenant-Additional evidence-Taking of-Tampe1ing of records--Prevention of-Held: Directio11 F with regard to proceedings under Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 a11d regular civil cowts issued-Delhi High Court should frame appropliate mies of practice to be obse1Ved by all subordinate cowts--Provision of the statute, ~ules a11d CPC should be stlictly complied with-Procedure for filing ~f rejoinder and application for additional evidence by a party laid down-Prac- tice. and Procedure.. G The appellant-tenant was gra
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.