SMT. DHANWANTI versus D.D. GUPTA

Citation: [1986] 3 S.C.R. 18 · Decided: 09-05-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
SMT. DHANWANTI 
v. 
D.D. GUPTA 
MAY 9, 1986 
[R.S. PATHAK AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ.) 
Constitution of India, !950, Article !36-Interference by the 
Supreme Court with findings of fact by Courts below-Supreme Court 
can interfere when grave injustice results consequent upon an order 
passed by a statutory authority based on misconstruction of facts and 
circumstances. 
Delhi Rent Control Act, section 2 ', scope of-Whether successive 
D 
letting out of the premises to the same party after obtaining on each 
occasion pennission under section 2:' tantamounts to fraud. 
The appellant land-lady is the owner of, a single storeyed house, 
at Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. It was constructed in the year 1973. The 
premises was let out to an official of the government after obtaining 
E 
necessary permission under section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act for 
a period of one year. The tenant vacated the premises after six or seven 
months and thereafter the premises were let out to the respondent on 
April 15, 1974, after obtaining permission again under section 21. The 
respondent vacated the premises on 27. 2. 1977 after settling account in 
respect of the rent. The premises were again let out by the appellant to 
F 
the respondent on March 11, 1977 after obtaining permission under 
section 2 l of the Act for a period of three years. After the expiry of the 
said period the respondent again vacated the premises and thereafter 
once again at his request the appellant let out the premises for a limited 
period of two years after obtaining the permission under section 21. The 
two years period expired on April 21, 1982 but the respondent did not 
G 
hand over possession of the premises to the appellant, forcing her to 
move the Rent Controller for an order directing delivery of possession 
of the premises. In the Execution Application, the respondent filed his 
objection on October 20, 1982 alleging that the permission under sec-
tion 21 of the Act was obtained by fraud practised on the Rent Control-
ler. On January 21, 1984 the First Additional Rent Controller, Delhi 
H 
upheld the objection filed by the respondent and dismissed the execu-
t 
\ 
L 
; 
\ 
SMT. DHANWANTI v. D.D. GUPTA 
19 
tion application. In appeal, the Rent Control Tribunal held: (i) that the 
allegation of the respondent that he had already entered into possession 
of the premises before permission was granted under section 21 of the 
Act in 1974 was false, and even if it be assumed that he had done so 
there was nothing to prevent him from surrendering the tenancy; and 
(ii) that the respondent cannot be considered to be a tenant in possession 
without interrruption ever since 1974 and that it was only the tenancy 
pursuant to the last permission that he continued. Basing on a state· 
ment made by the appellant regarding the transfer of her son to Delhi 
and her omission to mention in her application about the additional fact 
of unsuitability of climate of Bangalore and her grandson's illness, the 
Tribunal, however, held that the appellant had practised fraud on the 
Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. The second appeal by the 
appellant was dismissed summarily by the High Court. Hence the ap· 
peal by special leave. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. Ordinarily, the Supreme Court declines to interfere 
with findings of fact and refuses to entertain special leave petitions 
questioning such findings under Article 136 of the Constitution. How· 
ever, this is a case, where the entire approach of the statutory au· 
thorities has been vitiated by a gross misconstruction of the facts and 
circumstances of the case, ignoring material evidence of the record, and 
arriving at inferences which fly in the face of reason and the law ,-all 
resulting in grave injustire-, calling for necessary interference. 123 D-F) 
The evidence in this case, does not make out that any fraud was 
practised on the Rent Controller when permission was granted in 1980 
under section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The changing facts of 
social existence do not permit the application of unimaginative perspec· 
tives and inflexible assumptions. The mutating kaleidoscope of human 
life portrays a different reality. It is this fundamental error into which 
the Rent Control Tribunal has fallen and because of that it has unwit· 
tingly fallen further into the error of misconstruing the significance of 
the statement made by the appellant. [24 C-D I 
2. It is perfectly poss

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