LexSUBHASH KUMAR LATA versus R.C. CHHIBA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• ' SUBHASH KUMAR LATA v. R.C. CHHIBA & ANR. SEPTEMBER 23, 1988 [R.S. PATHAK, CJ AND S. NATARAJAN, J.] Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958: Section 21-Rent Controller- Duty of-To apply his mind before grant of sanction-Landlord obtaining sanction by withholding information that premises.already let out-Sanction-Held vitiated by fraud and therefore a nullity. Execution applications were filed by the Appellant under section A. B c 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for obtaining.possession. of the portions in the occupation of the respondents-Tenants. The. appel- lant's case was that she obtained sanction of the Additional Rent Con- troller on 26/27th February, 1976 and thereafter leased, out specified portions in her property to the respondents. under· separateleases for a D· limited period of two years commencing from March· I, 1976. The rear portion in the ground floor was leased out to one tenant and the first and second floor were leased out to another tenant. Each tenant was to pay a sum of Rs.850 per month. The execution applications were filed by the appellant against the two respondents as they failed. to vacate the portion leased out to.them at the end of the two year period. E The two respondents put up a common defence contending, that there was a single ·tenancy and not two tenancies,. they were jointly inducted into possession of the entire leased portion in the month of December, 1975, under an oral lease and the tenancy was•.therefore not referable to the sanction given by the Additional Rent Controller on F 26/27th February, 1976. They placed reliance on the payment of Rs. I, 700 on 10th December, 1975 as security deposit, and three. months·. advance payment of rent of Rs.5,100 by means of cheque on 29th December, 1975. The Rent· Controller after inquiry and consideration· of the G· evidence accepted the case of the. respondents, and held that an oral tenancy having been granted in favour of the respondents even in the month of December, 1975 their tenancy rights were not governed by the sanction given by the Additional Rent Controller under section 21, and·. that the saricti~n of the Rent Controller was vitiated by fraud inthat i~was obtained by. supressing the true facts from the notice of the Rent lfon- Hi 241 242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988) Supp. 3 S.C.R. A !roller. The execution applications were accordingly dismissed. In the appeals preferred to the Rent Control Tribunal, it was held that even if the respondents had been inducted into possession in December 1975 under an oral tenancy they must be deemed to have impliedly surrendered their earlier tenancy the sanction granted by the J;l Rent (;ontroller on 26/27th February. 1976. It was further held that the respondents ought to have brought to the notice of the Rent Con- troller without delay the fraud practised by the appellant and since they have felled to act ptomptly they were not entitled to seek nul- lificatloil of the sanction of the Rent Controller. The Tribunal allowed the appeals, held the execution applications were maintainable, and C directed respondents to deliver possession to the appellant in a month's time. I Second appeals were filed by respondents to the High Court, which were allowed. It was held that as the respondents were already given tenancy rights they would not be governed by the sanction given 0 by the Rent Controiler on 26/27th February, 1976, that the sanction order itself was unenforceable as It was vitiated by fraud, and that no question of Implied surrender ()f the earlier tenancy would arise, when ·the Rent Controller gave sanction for limited tenancy rights. The High Court restored the order of the Rent Controller dismissing the execu- tion appeals. Dismissing the appeals hy the landlord, the Court, HELD: 1. What section 21 envisages Is the creation of tenancy l'lghts after getting the sanction of the Rent Controller. Such being the case, the landlord should make known to the Rent Controller, If there Is f already a tenant In occupation of the premises, the factum of his posses· sion and the terms of the tenancy and satisfy the Rent Controller that notwithstanding a tenant being In occupation of the premises under an earlier tenancy lie should be granted sanction under section 21 to confer , limited tenancy rights In favour of the existing tenant himself or In favour of new tenant. 0 [249D-E] 2. Section 21 was not Intended to obtain 'po
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.