Summary
A tenancy for a limited period of three years commencing from 1.6.79 in respect of a house at 34, Paschimi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi at a monthly rental of Rs.
5,000 was created by the appellant in favour of the first respondent company for the residence of its Chairman, Shri C.L. Sachdev after obtaining the requisite permission under section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. In the application filed before the Rent Controller and in the proposed lease- deed it was- specifically stated that the appellant landlord in order to clear the loan taken by him for the construction of the premises was creating the limited tenancy for a period of three years. The appellant was desirous of getting possession of the house at the expiry of the period i.e 31st May, 1982 but before applying for possession under section 21 of the Act, by two registered letter one dated 1st March, 1981 and the other dated 5th May, 1982 he called upon the respondents to hand over vacant possession of the leased premises on the due date. The respondent neither replied these letters nor did handover possession. Therefore, the appellant filed an application under section 21 for recovery of possession before the Rent Controller On 1st July, 1982.On 9.7.82 the appellant took possession of the house through the bailiff and started residing therein with his family members.On 14th July 1982 the respondents filed a writ petition (CM No. (Main) 174 of 1982) in the Delhi High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking to quash the warrant of possession issued by the Rent Controller on 6.7.1982 and further proceedings taken in pursuance thereof on two grounds: (a) that the initial order dated 10th May, 1979 granting permission to create the limited tenancy was vitiated by fraud practiced by the appellant in as much as he had suppressed the fact that an earlier application for such permission has been declined on the ground that premises had been let out for commercial-cum-residential purposes and therefore, there was no executable order pursuant to which and warrant for possession could be issued under section 21 of the Act and (b) that the issuance of a warrant for recovery of possession on 6th July 1982 without notice to the tenant was erroneous law and in violation of the principle of natural justice and such nonissuance of notice on the part of the Rent Controller had deprived the tenant of an opportunity to prove his case of fraud. By his reply the appellant denied all the allegation made in the Writ Petition.900 The High Court took the view that no warrant for recovery of possession under section 21 of the Act would be issued in favour of the landlord without issuance of a notice to the tenant, and by its judgment and order dated 18th October, 1982 allowed the writ petition, quashed the warrant of possession Issued by the Rent Controller and sent the matter back to him for hearing and adjudicating upon the objections of the tenant to the issuance of such warrant of possession and in the meanwhile it also is directed that possession be restored to the tenant. Hence the appeal by special leave Allowing the appeal, the Court,^HELD: 1.1. Neither section 21 and 37 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 nor the Rules framed under t`he Act require service of any prior notice upon the tenant before he is evicted and in the instant case, the order directing issuance of warrant of possession under section 21 without prior notice to the tenant, for the purpose of putting the landlord in possession of the leased premises at the expiry of the limited tenancy cannot be regarded as illegal, invalid or unwarranted. [908 E-F]1.2. An analysis of section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act will show that in regard to tenancies for limited period mentioned therein only two orders arc contemplated; (i) an order by the Rent Controller sand or permitting the creation of a tenancy for a particular fixed period only, and (ii) an order by the Rent Controller putting the landlord in vacant possession of the leased premises by evicting the tenant and every other occupier thereof at the expiry of that period. Before passing the first order the Rent Controller is required to satisfy himself that the two conditions mentioned in the section are genuinely satisfied in every case, namely, (a) that the landlord does not require the premises for a particular period only and (h) that the letting itself is for residential purposes and no other. The landlord s non- requirement OF the premises for a particular period may arise out of various circumstances for instance, being an officer he may be going on some other assignment for a particular period or being in occupation of official quarters he may have to vacate the same on his retirement or having borrowed a loan for the same on his retirement or having borrowed a loan for the construction he may issuer to clear it of before occupying the premises for this own use, etc. Both the conditions must be truly fulfilled and not by way of any make belief before the Rent Controller grants his permission for the creation of such limited tenancy but once such limited tenancy is properly created the second order of putting the landlord in vacant possession of the leased premises by evicting the tenant at the expiry of the fixed period has to be passed as a matter of course because the tonality, in view of the non-obstinate clause contained in section 21, has no right or protection whatsoever under law to continue in possession nor has he any defense to eviction. The second order contemplated by section 21 is in the nature OF a process in execution where under landlord has to be put in possession of the leased premises by evicting the tenant and every other occupant thereof, and no notice to the tenant is contemplated before issuing ll the warrant of possession for putting the landlord in possession. [906 G-H; 907 A-E]901 1.3. Section 21 carves out tenancies of particular category for A special treatment and provides a special procedure that will ensure to the landlord vacant possession of the leased premises forth-with at the expiry of the fixed period of tenancy, evicting whoever be in actual possession Such being the avowed object of prescribing the special procedure, service of a prior notice on the tenant upon receipt of the landlord's application for recovery of possession and inviting his objections followed by an elaborate inquiry in which evidence may have to be recorded will rally frustrate that object. [909F-G]S. B. Noronah v. Prem Kumari Khanna, [1980] I SCR 201, followed.1.4 In ease there was in fact a mere ritualistic observance of the procedure while granting permission for the creation of a limited tenancy or where such permission was procured by fraud practised by the landlord or as a result of collusion between the strong and the weak, the solution lies not in insisting upon service of a prior notice on the tenant before the issuance of the warrant of possession to evict him but by insisting upon his approaching the Rent Controller during the currency of the limited tenancy for adjudication of his pleas no sooner he discovers facts and circumstances that tend to vitiate ab- initio the initial grant of permission, and certainly not to wait till the landlord makes his application for recovery of possession after the 1) expiry of the fixed period under section 21. The special procedure provided for the benefit of the landlord in section 21 warrants such immediate approach on the part of the tenant. Of course, if the tenant aliunde comes to know about landlord's application for recovery of possession and puts forth his plea of fraud or collusion etc. at that stage the Rent Controller would inquire into such plea but he may run the risk of getting it rejected as an after-thought. [912A-D]1.5. Except Rule 5 which deals with applications made under s. 21 and which merely provides for period of limitation by saying that every application under section 21 shall be made by the landlord within six months from the date of the expiry of the period of tenancy, there is no other rule in Delhi Rent Control Rules 1959 framed by the Central Government under section 56 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, requiring a notice being served upon the tenant before the issuance of warrant or possession to evict him.[907E-G]1.6. Section 37 (1) of the Act also, cannot be construed as requiring service of a prior notice upon the tenant before issuance of a warrant of possession against him. All that sub-section (1) of section 31 of Delhi Rent Control Act does is to incorporate a rule of natural justice, namely, that an order prejudicially affecting a person shall not be made without hearing him and considering his objections if any to the proposed order. But an order can be said to affect a person prejudicially only if any right of his would be affected adversely and in view of the non-obstinate clause contained in section 21 the tenant on the expiry of the limited period has no right or protection whatsoever under any law to continue in possession and as such the issuances of a warrant of possession directing him to vacate the premises in his Occupation cannot be regarded as one which prejudicially affect him.[907H; 908C-D]902See the full content of this document
Extract
J.R. Vohra VS. India Export House Pvt. Ltd. And Another
PETITIONER: J.R. VOHRA Vs.RESPONDENT: INDIA EXPORT HOUSE PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHERDATE OF JUDGMENT14/02/1985BENCH: TULZAPURKAR, V.D.BENCH: TULZAPURKAR, V.D.MISRA RANGNATHKHALID, V. (J)CITATION: 1985 AIR 475 1985 SCR (2) 899 1985 SCC (1) 712 1985 SCALE (1)219CITATOR INFO : R 1987 SC1986 (22)F 1987 SC1996 (11)RF 1989 SC 458 (11)R 1990 SC 325 (19,20,24)E 1990 SC1725 (21)E 1991 SC1233 (10,13,15)RF 1992 SC1555 (2,6,15,16)ACT: Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 section 21 read with section 37 and Rule 5 of Delhi Rent Control Rules, 1959, scope of-Limited tenancy created with permission of the Rent Controller under section 21-Whether a warrant for recovery or possession can be issued in favour of a landlord without notice to the tenant under section 21JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3381 of 1982.From the judgment and order dated 18.10 82 of the High Court of Delhi in C.M. (M)) No. 174/82.V.M. Tarkunde, B. Dutta and Mrs. & Mr. A. Minocha for the Appellant.L N. Sinha and Mr.. Parmod Dayal, for the Respondent.The Judgment Or the Court was delivered by TULZAPURKAR. J. The only question raised in this appeal is whether a warrant for recovery of possession can be issued ill favour of a landlord without notice to the tenant under s. 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) ?A tenancy for a limited period of three years commencing from 1.6 1979 in respect of a house at 34, Paschimi Marg, V...
See the full content of this document