Skip to content


Asa Nand Vs. Gulab Rai - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSecond Appeal No. 324 of 1973
Judge
Reported in1975RLR175
ActsDelhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 21
AppellantAsa Nand
RespondentGulab Rai
Advocates: M.S. Vohra and; B.D. Dhawan, Advs
Excerpt:
- .....the premises. where no such writing has been executed after obtaining the permission from the controller an application for eviction would not lie within the scope of section 21 of the act. (7) the application out of which this appeal has arisen does not contain any averment that after obtaining the permission from the controller on the 28th november, 1968 any writing was executed between the landlord and the tenant containing an agreement that the whole of the premises or any part thereof was being let out for any prescribed period. (8) i hold that where the application under section 21 does not contain a specific statement that after obtaining the requisite permission of the controller in the prescribed manner a writing had been executed between the landlord and the tenant.....
Judgment:

P.S. Safeer, J.

(1) This appeal arises out of an application made under section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (Act 59 of 1958) hereinafter called the Act.

(2) The application states in paragraph 1 that the applicant who is appellant before me had obtained permission of the Additional Rent Controller Shri S. R. Goel, for letting out the premises comprised in No. 28. Block L. Kirti Nagar, New Delhi and that he had rented out the ground floor to the respondent Gulab Rai for a period of six years beginning with the first of December, 1968 and ending with the 30th Nov., 1974. The monthly rent was fixed at Rs. 350.00. In paragraph 2 the applicant stated that the respondent took the ground floor for the residence and had agreed that he would not sublet the same to any person. The averment is that subject to the said condition and with the permission of the Additional Rent Controller, the present appellant had put the respondent to this appeal in possession of the premises. In paragraph 3 the applicant stated that soon after the appellant was transferred to Madras and in his absence the respondent violated the essential conditions of the permission accorded on 28th November, 1968 in as much as a part of the premises was sublet to one Shri Tek Chand for commercial purposes.

(3) The applicant then stated that he had been transferred back to Delhi on 27th December, 1971.

(4) It is no where stated in the application made for obtaining eviction of the respondent in the terms of Section 21 of the Act that after obtaining the permission of the Controller it had been agreed to in writing between the landlord and the tenant that the tenancy was to last for any specified period. Section 21 in the Act is :-(...)

(5) A tenancy within the forequoted provisions can be created only after obtaining permission of the Controller in the prescribed manner. After the Controller has given the permission in the prescribed manner the landlord acquires the right to let whole of the premises or part thereof as a residence for such period as may be agreed to in writing between the landlord and the tenant.

(6) No writing within the postulation of Section 21 can be executed as between the landlord and the tenant before the Controller gives the permission in the prescribed manner. The permission to be given by the Controller within the scope of Section 21 is an essential pre-requisite to the execution of an agreement in writing between the landlord and the tenant fixing a period on the expiry of which the tenant may incur the obligations to vacate the premises. Where no such writing has been executed after obtaining the permission from the Controller an application for eviction would not lie within the scope of Section 21 of the Act.

(7) The application out of which this appeal has arisen does not contain any averment that after obtaining the permission from the Controller on the 28th November, 1968 any writing was executed between the landlord and the tenant containing an agreement that the whole of the premises or any part thereof was being let out for any prescribed period.

(8) I hold that where the application under Section 21 does not contain a specific statement that after obtaining the requisite permission of the Controller in the prescribed manner a writing had been executed between the landlord and the tenant containing the agreement that the tenancy pertaining to the premises to be described therein was to be for a fixed period then the application would be lacking the cause of action to be adjudicated upon.

(9) An application under section 21 made for obtaining the eviction of the tenant which does not state that the requisite permission had been obtained from the Controller and thereafter the landlord had let out the whole or a particular part of the premises for residence for a fixed period agreed to in writing between him and the tenant should not be proceeded with. The Additional Controller who dealt with the application should have rejected it for the reason that it did not contain the necessary particulars which an application under Section 21 should contain. In case of such a rejection the right would still remain with the landlord to prefer a proper application.

(10) I have gone through the application dated 23rd November, 1968 which the present applicant had made under Section 21 of the Act for obtaining the requisite permission. I find that the order-sheet in these proceedings discloses the presence of the respondent before the Additional Rent Controller on 28th November, 1968. On that date a statement of the present appellant was recorded. He produced Exhibit A-l which purported to be a copy of the order transferring him to Madras.

(11) No statement of Shri Gulab Rai, respondent to this appeal was ever recorded by the Additional Rent Controller. He made an order on 28th November, 1968 that the file be put up before him on the next date for passing appropriate order.

(12) It is wrongly stated in paragraph 3 of the application dated 31st May, 1972 made under Section 21 of the Act out of which this appeal has arisen that the Additional Rent Controller had accorded the permission on 28th November, 1968. His order granting the permission in original is dated 29th November, 1968. As already observed no writing executed between the landlord or the tenant after 29th November, 1968 is mentioned in the application out of which this appeal has arisen. Mr. M. S. Vohra who has addressed me in support of this appeal is unable to point out any part of the record wherein there may be any reference to any writing which may have come into being between the landlord and the tenant, in consequence of' the permission given by the Additional Rent Controller on 29th November, 1968. This appeal has no merit in it. While dismissing the appeal I reserve it to the appellant to file, if he so considers proper, a fresh application under section 21 of the Act containing detailed allegations Along with which he may, if he has in his possession, file any writing executed between him and the tenant after obtaining the requisite permission in which there may be an agreement pertaining to the letting out of the premises for any fixed period on the expiry of which the landlord may be entitled to move the Controller for passing an eviction order. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //