SHIV CHANDER KAPOOR versus AMAR BOSE

Citation: [1989] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 299 · Decided: 28-11-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.N. VENKATACHALIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SHIV CHANDER KAPOOR 
v. 
AMAR BOSE 
NOVEMBER 28, 1989 
[M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, N.D. OJHA AND 
J.S. VERMA, JJ.] 
Delhi Rent Control Act 1958--Section 21-Contro/Ier-Permis-
sion to create. tenancy-Grant of-Duty of tenant to raise plea of 
invalidity-Enquiry by controller-Scope of. 
This is a land-lord's appeal. By an agreement in writing between the 
parties, the second floor of the premises bearing no. 19/10, Rajinder 
Nagar, New Delhi was let out to the Respondent for a limited period of 
three years w .e.f. June 8, 1980, with the permission of the Rent Con-
troller obtained under section 21 of the Act. The Respondent-tenat 
having failed to deliver vacant possession of the premises in question, 
after the expiry of the stipulated period, the appellant moved an appli-
catio'1 before the Rent Controller for execution of his order by delivery 
of possession of the premises to him. The Respondent-tenant filed an 
objection to the said application to which the appellant replied duly. 
The Rent Controller rejected the appellant's application taking 
the view that the permission granted under section 21 of the Act was 
invalid and thus the tenant could not be. evicted on the expiry of 3 years. 
The Rent Controller thereby upheld the tenant's objection that the 
landlord's son being aged only 19 or 20 years, on the date of the expiry 
of the period of limited tenancy while the minimum age prescribed by 
law for marriage being 21 years the ground that the premises were 
needed for the son's marriage was not tenable. The Rent Controller 
accordingly held that creation of limited tenancy amounted to fraud 
and misrepresantation by the landlord which rendered the permission 
invalid. The appellant's appeal to the Tribunal as also to the High 
Court having failed, he has flied this appeal after obtaining Special 
Leave. The Tribunal and the High Court affirmed the view of the Rent 
Controller treating the grant of permission by the Controller to be 
mechanical and without application of mind. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
HELD: The object of enquiring into the validity of the Control-
H 
299 
300 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 
ler's permission under section 21 is only to ensure that essentials of a · 
A limited tenancy existed and the same was genuine; and it is not meant to 
permit raising of frivolous pleas which would frustrate the very object 
of its enactment. This view protects the honest tenants and only curbs 
the frivolous and vexatious pleas. [3108; 31IA] 
B 
Controller's permission when granted to create a limited tenancy 
under sec. 21 of the Act is presumed to be valid unless declsred 
otherwise. It is, therefore, for the person assailing its validity to get 
such a declaration from a proper forum in a proper proceedings. 
Unless this is done, the order remains enforceable. The duty is 
clearly on the tenant himself to raise the pleas of invalidity and 
uitless the order is declared invalid at his instance, its enforceability 
C cannot be doubted. [311B-C] 
D 
All that has to be seen is whether the period oflimited tenancy was 
indicated by the landlord with reference to a foreseeable future event 
and the estimate of time of its occurrence was not unreasonable. [312B] 
When the period of limited tenancy is stated on the basis of a 
future event the happening of which is reasonably certain at that time 
though the precise date of the future event cannot be predicted with 
precision, the landlord's estimate of the period after which the event is 
,expected to happen, unless unreasonable must be accepted for this 
E 'purpose as genuine. This would satisfy the test of a genuine limited 
tenancy if there be no other factor indicating it to be a mere pretence 
adopted by the landlord. (312C-D] 
The enquiry contemplated under section 21 in this behalf is not 
the same as that for detemlining existence of ground of bona fide need of 
p 
the landlord for an order of eviction under section 14 of the Act, and 
section 14 is expressly superseded by section 21. The scope of enquiry is. 
limited only to the existence of the jurisdictional facts at the time of grant 
of the permission when its validity is challenged subsequently. (312F] 
The absence of existence of any jurisdictional fact not having been 
0 
proved by the respondent-tenant even after objecting to recovery of 
possession on expiry of the period of limited tenancy, there was no 
ground to refuse restoration of possession to t

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