1988 (9) TMI 354 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the sanction given by the Rent Controller under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
2. Allegations of fraud in obtaining the sanction.
3. Whether the respondents impliedly surrendered their earlier tenancy rights.
4. The effect of delay in challenging the sanction on the ground of fraud.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Sanction Given by the Rent Controller:
The appellant contended that the sanction given by the Rent Controller on 26/27.2.76 was fully in accordance with Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act and did not suffer from any defect or infirmity. However, the High Court found that the appellant had already let out the premises to the respondents in December 1975, making the statement before the Rent Controller that she would not need the premises for two years from 1.3.76 both "meaningless" and "subversive." The court emphasized that Section 21 envisages the creation of tenancy rights after getting the sanction of the Rent Controller, not post-facto sanction of an already created tenancy. The High Court held that the sanction order was unenforceable as it was vitiated by fraud.

2. Allegations of Fraud in Obtaining the Sanction:
The respondents argued that the appellant had fraudulently suppressed relevant facts from the Rent Controller, thereby obtaining the sanction. The Rent Controller initially found that the oral tenancy had been created in December 1975 and that the sanction was obtained by suppressing true facts. The Rent Control Tribunal, however, held that the respondents had impliedly surrendered their earlier tenancy and failed to act promptly to nullify the sanction on the ground of fraud. The High Court reversed this, stating that the appellant had fraudulently suppressed the fact that the respondents were already in possession. The court cited S.B. Noronah v. Prem Kumari, emphasizing that the Rent Controller must be vigilant and ensure the landlord's non-requirement for a particular period before granting sanction under Section 21.

3. Whether the Respondents Impliedly Surrendered Their Earlier Tenancy Rights:
The appellant argued that even if the respondents had been inducted into possession under an oral tenancy in December 1975, they must be deemed to have impliedly surrendered their tenancy rights when they agreed to accept limited tenancy rights under the sanction. The High Court rejected this, citing that when a new lease does not pass an interest according to the contract, the acceptance of it will not operate as a surrender of the former lease. The court concluded that the purported new lease was void in law and incapable of affording scope for any surrender of a pre-existing lease.

4. The Effect of Delay in Challenging the Sanction on the Ground of Fraud:
The appellant contended that the respondents had failed to promptly bring the fraud to the notice of the Rent Controller and had availed the benefit of the sanction for the full period of two years, thereby losing their power to avoid the transaction. The High Court, however, held that the delay in challenging the sanction does not cure the order of its voidness if the sanction was obtained by fraud. The court distinguished this case from J.R. Vohra v. Indian Export House Pvt. Ltd., Inder Mohan Lal's case, and Joginder Kumar Butani v. R.P. Oberai, where the delay was a relevant factor but did not involve fraud vitiating the sanction.

Conclusion:
The appeals were dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision that the sanction granted by the Rent Controller was unenforceable due to fraud. The respondents' earlier tenancy rights were not surrendered, and the delay in challenging the sanction did not validate the fraudulent order. The High Court restored the Rent Controller's order dismissing the Execution Applications.