LexSMT. SHRISHT DHAWAN versus SHAW BROTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A SMT. SHRISHT DHA WAN v. ·~ SHAW BROTHERS ... DECEMBER 13, 1991 B [DR. T .K.THOMMEN AND R.M. SAHAI, JJ.] ,_ Rent Control and Eviction . ·_;~~ Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958: ,.. c S.21-Applicationfor permission to let out residential premises/or short period-Requirements of-Order of Rent Controller granting permissio~ When can be challenged. 'Fraud -What constitutes for purposes of s.21: Onus to prove fraud- On whom lies. D Words and Phrases: 'Fraud': 'jurisdictional fact' -Meaning of. • E The ·appellant-landlady on 3.11.1978, applied for permission under s.21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, stating that she wanted to give the ground nour of her house on rent for residential purposes for a short period of three years, whereafter she would need the house. After record- ing the statements of the landlady in support of her application, and of the _, tenant who had agreed in writing to vacate the house after the stipulated F period, the Rent Controller granted the permission. Twenty days before the tenancy was to come to an end, the tenant-firm vainly requested the landlady to renew the lease; and the latter filed an execution application under s.21 of the Act, which was successfully challenged by the tenant- "'.;~ farm on the ground that the permission was obtained by the landlady by playing fraud as she knew from the very beginning that the premises were G availa~le for letting out indefmitely. The Rent Controller held that in the absence of any averment in the -. application of the landlady that she would require the premises for her younger son, her statement in support of it could not be looked into; and that, apart from the variance between pleadings and proof, the landlady H failed to establish that the premises were let out with intention to get it 446 J SMT. DHA WAN v. SHAW BROS. 447 back after three years for her second son. It was also held that even assuming that the premises were not needed by her for her son could not validate the sanction. The appellate authority, agreeing with the findings of the Controller, held that since the landlady stated that she requirtid the premises for herself after three years and she was having an accommodation which was sufficient for her and her family, the permission obtained by her was vitiated by fraud. After unsuccessfully approaching the High Court, the landlady preferred the appeal by special leave to this Court. It was contended by the appellant that the authorities below mis- directed themselves in placing the burden on her to prove that the permission obtained by her was genuine; and that it was for the tenant to establish that the permission was obtained by playing fraud. A B c On the question of the requirements of s. 21 of the Delhi Rent D Control Act for the purpose of acl'.ording permission, and as to what constitutes fraud in relation thereto, Allowing the .landlady's appeal, this Court, HELD: (By the Court): 1. Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act,1958 operates in terms thereof, notwithstanding any other law, unless the contract itself, or the permission of the Controller, is vitiated by fraud. Absent such vitiating circumstance, and once the Controller has accorded sanction, the parties to the contract are presumed to have. entered into their relationship and the law binds them to the terms of their agreement. [pp. 456EF; 4610] E F 2. Section 21 of the Act is attracted in the specific circumstances postulated by it-the absence of requirement by the landlord of the whole or any part of the premises for a particular period, the period must be clear and definite, the lack of requirement must be honestly felt by the landlord, the permission of the Controller in the prescribed manner for G the lease orthe premises in. question, the agreement in writing between the landlord and the. tenant for the lease of such premises as a residence for 'the agreed.period, the refusal of the tenant to vacate the premises on the . exp fry orthat period, an<J an application made within the prescribed time by the landlord invoking the power of the Controller under the section. . . [pp.456GH; 457A; 461C] H 448 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991) SUPP. 3 S. C.R. A 3.(i) Permission granted under s.21 of the Act can be assailed by the '"" •.;::---- tenant only if it can be establishe~ that it was vitiated by fraud or collusionor jurisdictional error which in the context of Section 21 is t no
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.