9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Deficiency in the application for execution due to omission of the words "in writing". 2. Validity of the sanction u/s 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, and its implications. Summary of Judgment: Issue 1: Deficiency in the Application for Execution - The appellant argued that the application for execution was defective because it did not explicitly state that the lease was "in writing". It was contended that the amendment to include these words was barred by the limitation period of six months. - The court held that "pleadings are not statutes and legalism is not verbalism". The application, when read as a whole, implied that the lease was in writing. The court emphasized that "law should not be stultified by courts by sanctifying little omissions as fatal flaws". Therefore, the application did not suffer from any verbal lacunae, and there was no need for amendment. Issue 2: Validity of the Sanction u/s 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - The court examined the social context and legislative intent behind Section 21, which provides a special procedure for eviction to maximize available accommodation for letting. The court highlighted that Section 21 is intended for residential purposes only and must be strictly construed to prevent misuse by landlords. - The court outlined the essential conditions for the application of Section 21: - The landlord must not require the premises "for a particular period" only. - The letting must be for residential purposes. - The Controller's permission is obligatory, specifying the particular period and residential use. - The court stressed that the Controller must be vigilant and ensure that the conditions for sanction are genuinely met. If the sanction is procured by fraud or collusion, it is invalid. - The court held that it is open to the tenant to challenge the validity of the sanction under Section 21. The executing court must examine whether the sanction is a make-believe, vitiated by fraud and collusion. Conclusion: - The court dismissed the appeal on the first point, holding that the application did not suffer from any deficiency. - On the second point, the court directed the Controller to examine the validity of the sanction and other objections in light of the observations made. The court emphasized the importance of strict compliance with the conditions of Section 21 to prevent misuse and protect public interest. - The appeal was dismissed, and the parties were directed to bear their respective costs throughout.
|
