TMI Blog1989 (11) TMI 314X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred as the 'Act'). The true scope of the enquiry con- templated when the tenant assails validity of the Rent Controller's permission granted under section 21 of the Act for creation of a tenancy for limited period arises for determination in the present case. The premises is the second floor of the building beating No. 19/10, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi comprising of two rooms, a kitchen, bathroom and lavatory let out for residence on a monthly rent of ₹ 800 apart from electricity and water charges. The landlord offered to let out the premises for three years only w.e.f. June 8, 1980 for the reason that it would be needed by his family thereafter when his son got married, to which the tenant consented. Accordingly, by an agreement in writing between the parties the premises was so let out for the limited period of three years w.e.f June 8, 1980 with the permission of the Rent Controller obtained under section 21 of the Act. The order of the Rent Controller is as under: In view of the statements of the parties made above, I am satisfied that there is no collusion or fraud. I am also satisfied that the petitioner does not require the suit premises for a li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge for marriage of 21 years on the date of the expiry of the period of three years of the limited tenancy which showed that the reason given was false, and (2) absence of bona fide need of the landlord for occupying the premises, namely, the second floor of the building. The High Court's order is based only on the first ground. The scope of enquiry contemplated under section 21 of the Act when the tenant assails validity of the Controller's permission to create a limited tenancy thereunder was seriously debated at the heating of this appeal. On behalf of the appellant/landlord it was urged that the scope is limited to examining only the existence of jurisdictional facts which permit grant of permission to create a tenancy for limited period and no more. On this basis, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the above first ground alone was within the scope of enquiry which too has been wrongly decided by the High Court on a misconstruction of Section 21. On the other hand it was contended on behalf of the respondent-tenant that the enquiry extends also to examining the other ground viz. existence of landlord's bona fide need to occupy the premises on expiry ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... toration of possession on expiry of the limited period. However, while enacting a provision permitting the creation of a tenancy for limited period to utilize such premises and alleviate to some extent the suffering of persons needing residential accommodation, it was necessary also to ensure that the provision was not misused by capricious landlords to circumvent Section 14 of the Act. It was to achieve this dual purpose that Section 21 was enacted in the Delhi Act to encourage landlords who did not need any premises for a limited period only, to let it out for such period with the assurance of restoration of possession at the end of that period without being required to satisfy Section 14 of the Act. The provision also contains an internal check upon an unscrupulous landlord by requiting the Rent Controller's permission to be granted in the given circumstances only. The conditions on which permission can be granted by the Rent Controller under Section 21 are specified in Section 21 itself. A fortiori when the question arises about the validity of the Rent Controller's permission it can be tested only with reference to the specified conditions subject to which alone permis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riod under this provision which brings into existence a valid limited tenancy and, therefore, such valid permission is a sine qua non of Controller's jurisdiction to order restoration of possession on expiry of that period under the second part of Section 21. It is, therefore, the obligation of the Controller to examine the question of validity of his earlier permission, if such an objection is raised before he orders restoration of possession to the landlord on expiry of the limited term. However, that enquiry must be limited only to the existence of the aforesaid jurisdictional facts at the time of grant of permission and no more. This is quite evident from the expression 'notwithstanding anything contained in Section 14 or in any other law'. in the second part of Section 21 itself. This is the inbuilt safeguard in the provision against its misuse. We have no doubt that the language of Section 21 of the Act clearly forbids the Controller from embarking on an enquiry beyond the ambit of Section 21 itself which may impinge into the sphere of Section 14 of the Act or any other law. We have no hesitation in holding that it is the existence of the aforesaid jurisdictional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing or part thereof which the landlord is able to let out for a strictly limited period provided he has some credible assurance that when he needs he will get it back. The problem is felt most for residential uses. So the law has to make itself credit-worthy. Section 21 is the answer . Section 21 overrides Section 14 precisely because it is otherwise hedged in with drastic limitations and safeguards itself against landlords' abuses. What, then, are those conditions and safe- guards? The first condition is that the land- lord does not require the demised premises for a particular period only. The Controller must be satisfied that the landlord means what he says and it is not a case of his not requiring the property indefinitely as distinguished from a specific or particular limited period of say one year, two years or five years. If a man has a house available for letting for an indefinite period and he so lets it, even if he specifies as a pretence, a period or term in the lease, Section 21 cannot be attracted. On the other hand, if he gives a special reason why he can let out only for a limited period and requires the building at the end of that period it is good complia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny misuse of the said provision by the landlord taking advantage of the helpless situation of the tenant due to house scarcity. Facts of that case show that the scope of enquiry was limited only to examining existence of the jurisdictional facts at the time of grant of permission by the Controller. In Smt. Dhanwanti v. D.D. Gupta, [1986] 3 SCC 1, it was held on the facts of that case that permissions for letting out to the same tenant for limited period obtained more than once after expiry of each said period was by itself not sufficient to establish that the premises was available for being let out for an indefinite period; without showing absence of landlord's intention to occupy the premises. Notice was taken of the common knowledge that it is not possible for a man to plan his future life with any degree of definiteness and changing circumstances may justify such a course. The principle applied was the same and the ultimate conclusion was reached on the particular facts of that case. In Inder Mohan Lal v. Ramesh Khanna, [1987] 4 SCC 1, it was held that the presumption of validity of the permission given by the Controller was not rebutted by the tenant since there was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but in that situation the tenant may run the risk of getting his plea rejected as an after-thought. It was expressly held in this decision that there is no obligation on the part of the Rent Controller to serve a notice on the tenant before issuing the warrant of possession on the landlord's application made after expiry of the period of limited tenancy for recovery of possession. It is obvious from the decision in J.R. Vohra's case that the tenant is expected to raise such a plea during currency of the limited tenancy and on such a plea being raised by the tenant enquiry into it is contemplated. Even though it is not expressly said in Vohra's case, it is implicit that on such an application being made by the tenant requiring adjudication by the Controller, it is the Controller's obligation to issue notice of the same to the landlord and then to make the adjudication with opportunity to both sides to prove their respective contentions. As for the requirement of notice to the tenant before issuing the warrant of possession in favour of the landlord on his application for recovery of possession on expiry of the limited tenancy, it appears to us also that no notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its ostensible purpose as the most impeccable of orders'. In the words of Lord Diplock, the order would be presumed to be valid unless the presumption was rebutted in competent legal proceedings by a party entitled to sue . For the above reasons, we are in respectful agreement with the view taken in J.R. Vohra's case (supra) that there is no obligation on the Controller to issue notice to the tenant of the landlord's application for recovery of possession made on expiry of the period of tenancy for a limited period under section 21 of the Act, but an enquiry on the tenant's plea has to be made to the extent indicated, if the tenant assails validity of the Controller's permission even at that stage. We shall now consider the merits of this case on the basis indicated above. The High Court has upheld rejection of the landlord's application for recovery of possession under section 21 of the Act on the ground that the land- lord's son would be about 19 or 20 years old on expiry of three years period of limited lease but he could not be married till he attained the prescribed minimum age of 21 years which showed that the Controller's order granting p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in this behalf is not the same as that for determining existence of the ground of bona fide need of the landlord for an order of eviction under section 14 of the Act, and Section 14 is expressly superceded by Section 21. This question is, there- fore, beyond the scope of the present enquiry. The respondent-tenant also contended that the premises was constructed in 1972 and the landlord had never occupied this premises viz., the second floor of the building for his personal use and had even let out the first floor prior to 1980. In the present case the respondent did not produce any material to prove letting out of any part of the building much less this premises i.e. second floor of the building. After the arguments were concluded before us and the judgment was reserved, the respondent has filed an application under order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 15 1 C.P.C. for admitting additional evidence to show letting out of the second floor of the building. It has been stated that the evidence could not be produced in the Courts below since the objections were not listed for investigation by the Courts. No cogent ground is shown to permit any additional evidence when no attempt to pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
