V. S. RAHI AND ANR. versus SMT. RAM CHAMBELI

Citation: [1984] 2 S.C.R. 290 · Decided: 03-01-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

A·
290
B.
c
D
E
F
H
"
V. S. RABI AND ANR.
V,
SMT. RAM CHAMBELI
JanuaJy 3, 1984
[E.S. VEN,KATARAMlAH AND R.B, MISRA, JJ.J
•
.
Delhi Rent Co~tro/ Act, 1958, (Act 59 '°f 1958) Sectio; 2J~W.hile invoking ·
t~e re1nedial provisions of '·Section 21~ ~he lau;lllord Shot{!d conie with clean ha~ds a·
. and not supprdss or falsify facis-Doctriue of suppressioverf will disentit/e hbn to
get back possession later iiz such case; of stippression of facts- Duty of the Court-
Meaning of collusion-Right to resile, when aval1able.....-Rule of oppression and illegal
contract explained.
·
The respondent Smt. Ran1 Chambeli leased out the suit premises to the
arpcllantS for a P.eriod o.f three yCars under an orQer dated ·December 22, 1977 passed
bY the Additional Rent Controller in Suit No. M/?98/77 µnder ·section 21 of the
Delhi Rent Contr9I ACt. . bii the expiry of the .said period, when the ~espondefil
filed an application ~eforc the Rent Controller for possess'ion of the preinises, the
appellants filed objections, highlighting how by suppression and falSifying facts
the resporident resorted to the proYisions of section 21 of the :Rent.Act, arl'd challeng-
ed the need for personal Occupation. : The Additional Rent Cpiltroller, therefore,
after hearing both sides revoked the perlnission granted in 1977.
HOwever, the·
Rent Control Tribunal set aside the o_rd~r of the Addi. Rent Controller. and ordered
eviction. The High Court in Second Appeal confinned Tribunal's order. Hence
"the tenan(s'appeat" by Special' Leave of the Court,
Allo\ving the· appeal, the c;:ourt,
Hi5:LD .:
1. · On .the facts- and ciicumstances of the" case, the landlady· is
·not entitled to invoke· th'C ren;edy· under section.21 _of the Delhi Rent Control Ac~.
The permission under section 21 of the Act had been obtained by her .on the basis
of wrong statement, but for which the permission wollld not have been accorded._
.. These statements which were in the nature of half truths were apparently ma.de
in Order to ffiake good the plea that_ there was only a .temBorary necessity to lease ·
out t\le building for ·a short period and that thCre wiS a bonafide anticipation that
there would be a pressing neCeSsity to reoccupy the pren}ises at '1e end of the period,
which wer(;! the two crucial factors governing an order under section 2_1 of the A~t.
[296 F; E]
S.B. Noronah v •. Prem Kun1ari Khaizna, [19.80] 1 S.C.R. 281; applied.
.
.
. .
. .
2: 1 It is true that the appellants who were the weaker.'of th6two parties
did not. question ihe .truth of.the staten1ents made by the r~spondent·when.the
. permiSsiOn was granted. · But such \collusion, if anY, between the two unequal
parties dO'es hot confer any sanctity on the transaction in question; In cases of
this 'Ilature it is always oPen to the weaker of ·the two parties to establish that ·
the.transaction was only a camouflage ·used to cover-its true nature. [296 H; 297 A]
•
)-.
(
·~ -
~
..
•
'
•
v .. s .. RAHi v. RAM CHAMBELJ (Venkataramiah, J.)
291 .
2:2.
Collusion in1plies the existenCe of two or n1ore parties \vho r;:an deal
with each other independently with the object of entering into an arrangement
which may seive as a cloak to cover up the real state of affairs. When one party
can dominate over the will of the other, it would nOt be a case of Collusion but one
of compulsioU; The ilbove view is fully in. cc;insonancc with the spirit behind the·
rule of oppression which ,is recognised as an exception to the doctrine" that a party
cannot recover what he has given to the other P.arty under an illegal contract. The
gro.und that the appellants ca·nnot challenge! the permission ,i_nitially grar.ted under
section 21 of the ~ct is not, therefore) availa?le in this c~se. (297 B-CJ
S1nith ·v. Ci<ff[1817] 6 ~ & S 160@ 165, quoted with approval.
CIVIL APPELLATE JUR1So1CT10N: Civil Appeal No. 28<lJ of 1982.
From the Judgment and Order dated. the 23rd August, l 982
of the Delhi High Court at New Delhi in S.A.O. No. 277 of 1982'.
B.X. Joseph and N.S. Das Behl for the Appellant.
J.M. Khanna for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by :
~
V~NKATARAMIAH; J.· This is an appeal by ·sp~cial leave against
the judgment of the High Cou•t of Delhi ~atcd Augm.t 23. 1982 in
S.A.O. No. 277 of J982tJismissing the appeal filed by the appellants.
The respondent Smt. Ra1~ Chambeli leased out the premises
in question to the appellan'ts under an order

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