1989 (11) TMI 314 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Rent Controller's permission u/s 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
2. Scope of enquiry under section 21.
3. Requirement of notice to the tenant before issuing a warrant of possession.

Summary:
1. Validity of the Rent Controller's permission u/s 21:
The landlord's application for recovery of possession was rejected by the Rent Controller, the Rent Control Tribunal, and the Delhi High Court on the ground that the landlord's son was below the minimum age for marriage at the expiry of the limited tenancy, rendering the permission granted u/s 21 of the Act invalid. The Supreme Court held that the reason given by the landlord for the limited tenancy (son's marriage) was genuine and the estimate of time was not unreasonable. The Court emphasized that the enquiry should be limited to the existence of jurisdictional facts at the time of granting permission and not extend to other factors.

2. Scope of enquiry under section 21:
The Supreme Court clarified that the scope of enquiry when the tenant assails the validity of the Controller's permission is limited to determining whether the permission was for a genuine limited tenancy or a mere pretence to circumvent Section 14 of the Act. The Court reiterated that Section 21 is a self-contained code and should be strictly construed. The enquiry should not extend to examining the landlord's bona fide need as required under Section 14.

3. Requirement of notice to the tenant before issuing a warrant of possession:
The Court referred to the decision in J.R. Vohra's case and held that there is no obligation on the Controller to serve a notice on the tenant before issuing a warrant of possession on the landlord's application made after the expiry of the limited tenancy. The tenant is expected to raise any plea of invalidity during the currency of the limited tenancy or as soon as he discovers facts that tend to vitiate the initial grant of permission.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned orders of the Rent Controller, Rent Control Tribunal, and the High Court. The landlord's application for recovery of possession was granted, and the respondent-tenant was ordered to pay costs and additional amounts as specified.