1984 (1) TMI 349 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the permission granted under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
2. Misrepresentation and false statements by the respondent.
3. Applicability of the rule of oppression and collusion in the context of Section 21 of the Act.
4. The right of the respondent to recover possession of the premises under Section 21 of the Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Permission Granted under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958:

The appeal challenges the judgment dismissing the appellants' objections to the respondent's application for possession of the premises after the expiry of the lease period. The initial permission to lease the premises was granted under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which allows landlords to lease out premises for a limited period with the Controller's permission. The Supreme Court scrutinized whether the permission was obtained through genuine necessity or misrepresentation.

2. Misrepresentation and False Statements by the Respondent:

The appellants argued that the respondent obtained the permission by making false statements. The respondent misrepresented that the premises had not been leased out earlier, whereas it was later admitted that a tenant named Kataria had vacated the premises only a few months before the application. Additionally, the respondent falsely described her foster mother as her real mother and misrepresented the age and class of her son to create an impression of temporary necessity. The Supreme Court found these statements to be half-truths aimed at securing permission under Section 21, which would not have been granted otherwise.

3. Applicability of the Rule of Oppression and Collusion in the Context of Section 21 of the Act:

The respondent contended that the appellants, having colluded with her initially, should not be allowed to challenge the permission. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that collusion between unequal parties does not validate the transaction. The Court highlighted the principle that where one party dominates and the other submits under compulsion, it is not a case of collusion but oppression. This view aligns with the rule of oppression, which allows relief to the weaker party in transactions involving unequal bargaining power.

4. The Right of the Respondent to Recover Possession of the Premises under Section 21 of the Act:

The Tribunal and the High Court had dismissed the appellants' objections mechanically without applying the correct legal principles from the precedent set in S.B. Noronah v. Prem Kumari Khanna. The Supreme Court held that the respondent, having obtained permission through misrepresentation, was not entitled to recover possession under Section 21. The Court emphasized that Section 21 aims to protect tenants from unscrupulous landlords and prevent misuse of the provision for temporary leasing.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the High Court and the Tribunal, dismissing the respondent's application for possession under Section 21 of the Act. The appeal was allowed with costs, reaffirming the need for genuine necessity and truthful representation in applications under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.