TMI Blog1988 (9) TMI 354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ver, reversed the order of the Rent Control Tribunal in the Second Appeals preferred by the respondents a dismissed the Execution Applications. The aggrieved appellant has preferred these appeals. It was the appellant's case that she had obtained the sanction of the Additional Rent Controller, New Delhi on 26/27.2.76 and there-after leased out specified portions in her property bearing no. N-57, Panchseel Park, New Delhi to the respondents under separate leases of a limited period of two years commencing from 1.3.76. According to here the rear portion in the ground floor consisting of a drawing-cum- dining hall a bed room, a bath room and other facilities were leased out to the tenant Maj. R.C. Chhiba (respondent in CA No. 1594 of 1986)and the first and second floors comprising of four bed rooms with attached bath rooms and other facilities were leased out to the tenant Tewari (respondent in CA 1595 of 1986) and each of the tenants was to pay a sum of ₹ 50 per month for the respective portion PG NO 245 leased out to them. On the ground the two respondents failed to vacate the portions leased out to them at the end of the two years period, the appellant filed Execution ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uire fresh tenancy under the sanction granted by the Rent Controller on 26/27.2.76. On the PG NO 246 question whether the sanction of the Rent Controller was vitiated by fraud, the Appellate Tribunal held that the respondents ought to have brought to the notice of the Rent Controller without delay the fraud practised by the appellant and since they had failed to act promptly they were not entitled to seek nullification of the sanction of the Rent Controller on the ground of fraud. In accordance with its conclusions, the Tribunal allowed the appeals preferred by the appellant and held that the Execution Applications were maintainable and directed the respondents to deliver possession to the appellant of the leased portions in a month's time. It was then the turn of the respondents file second appeals to the High Court against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal. The High Court allowed the appeals holding that since the respondents were already given tenancy rights they would not be governed by the sanction given by the Rent Controller on 26/27.2.76 and furthermore the sanction order itself was unenforceable as it was vitiated by fraud. The High Court also held that no ques ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th of December 1975 itself, they must be deemed to have impliedly surrendered their tenancy rights under the oral lease when they agreed to accept the limited tenancy rights given to them in pursuance of the sanction of the Rent Controller. Before we examine the contentions of Mr. Rohtagi, we may appositely advert to certain facts emerging from the evidence and the inferences resulting therefrom. The relevant factors requiring mention are as follows. The two respondents are not stranger but are brothers and they have been inducted into possession on one and the same day, i.e. on 10th December 1975. Though the appellant would say that different portions of the house were leased out to them under separate tenancies, the fact remains that a sum of ₹ 1,700 had been paid by them towards security deposit on 10.12.1975. The appellant has no doubt acknowledged the payment under two receipts but both the receipts have been typed on the same paper. The receipts would read as if a sum of ₹ 850 had been received separately from each one of them but the recital is of no consequence because the respondents have paid the appellant a sum of ₹ 5,100 by means of a single cheq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order to attract Section 21 four conditions must be fulfilled. The relevant portion reads as follows: Therefore the first condition must be that the landlord must not require the premises either in whole or part of any premises for a particular period. Secondly, the landlord must obtain the permission of the Controller in the prescribed manner. Thirdly, letting of the whole or part of the premises must be for residence. Fourthly, such letting out must be for such period as may be agreed in writing. PG NO 249 Applying the above tests, it may be seen that in this case the very first condition has not been fulfilled. When the appellant had already parted with her possession of the leased portions by inducting the respondents into possession in December 1975 itself, the statement of the appellant before the Rent Controller on 26/27.2.76 made as if she was in possession of the house and she would not be needing the house for her occupation for a period of two years from 1.3. ]976) was a meaningless statement besides being a subversive statement as well. As pointed out in S.B. Noronah v. Prem Kumari, [1980] l SCR 281 Section 2 I has been provided in the Act to offer a pragmatic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not suffer from any defect or infirmity. As regards the next contention of Mr. Rohtagi that the appellant had not committed any fraud when she sought for and obtained sanction from the Rent Controller to grant limited tenancy rights to the respondents and that in any event the respondents were fully in the know of things and were therefore estopped from raising a plea of fraud to resist the Execution Applications, the argument is based on a misconception of the real perspective from which the matter Should be viewed. What is of relevance is not whether the appellant had committed any fraud upon the respondents but whether the appellant had fraudulently suppressed relevant materials from the notice of the Rent Controller and had thereby obtained an order of sanction from the Rent Controller to lease out the property for a period of two years from 1.3.1976. There is no denying the fact that the appellant had failed to disclose to the Rent Controller that she had already inducted the respondents into possession and inspite of it she was seeking permission under Section 21 in order to restrict the tenancy rights of the respondents to a period of two years with effect from 1.3.1976. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion. This is the proper perspective from which the matter should be viewed. Forgetting this position, Mr. Rohtagi based his arguments on the footing that what has been held against the appellant was her perpetration of a fraud on the respondents and the respondents being the sufferers thereby. It was proceeding on those lines Mr. Rohtagi argued that the respondents were not illiterate but highly educated persons, that they were fully aware of the nature of the transaction and that they had willingly consented to the creation of limited tenancy rights in their favour and it was only after deriving full benefit under the tenancy rights given to them for two years, they were brazenly setting forth a plea of fraud and refusing to deliver possession of the leased premises. The argument does not merit consideration because we have already pointed out that the relevant factor for consideration is not whether the respondent were victims of a fraud but whether the appellant by herself or in collusion with the respondents had fraudulently suppressed the truth from the Rent Controller and induced him to give his sanction under Section 21 so as to restrict the tenancy rights already conferred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
