9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (4) TMI 334X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mises situate at 83, Anand Lok, New Delhi. As he did not require the premises for a limited period of two years he decided to let out the same for this period to Haryana Electro Steel Limited, a company incorporated under the provisions of the Act with its registered office in the State of Haryana (referred to hereinafter as "the company"). A joint application was filed before the Rent Controller, Delhi, under section 21 of the Rent Act by the landlord and the company through its director, Shri Jagdish Prashad Gupta, who had been authorised to represent the company by a resolution in this regard. The Rent Controller, after recording the statements of the parties, passed the following order on November 1, 1976 : "In view of the statement of the parties, I am satisfied that the petitioner wants to let out, and the respondent wants to take the premises shown in plan, exhibit A-l, being House No. 83, Anand Lok, New Delhi, for a period of two years from the date of letting according to law for residence and the petitioner will require the premises after two years for himself. I permit the petitioner to let out this premises to the respondent for a period of two years from the date of l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ile the balance of Rs. 76,000 was to be paid on or before October 20, 1986. In case of default of any instalment, the premises were to be vacated and possession delivered to the landlord. It was further agreed that because of the improvements and repairs which were got made by the landlord the company would pay a sum of Rs. 8,000 per month as rent with effect from June 1, 1986. The director, Shri Pradeep Gupta, as undertaken by him before the Rent Controller, was to keep the premises till December 31, 1990, for himself and his family on the condition that the rent would be regularly paid and in case of any two consecutive defaults, the landlord would be entitled to have the order of eviction executed at once. After recording the aforesaid undertaking of the company through its director, the Rent Controller passed the following order on August 22, 1986 : "Present : counsel for the parties along with Dr. S. P. Bhargava and Shri Pradeep Gupta. Counsel for the parties have stated that the parties have compromised the matter in suit. Statements of Shri S. P. Bhargava, petitioner, and Shri Pradeep Gupta, director of the company, were recorded. Authority letter of Shri Pradeep Gupta is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld not continue as leave of this court has not been obtained under section 446 of the Act. It is interesting to note that Shri Pradeep Gupta, while replying to the contempt petition pending in the Delhi High Court, took the stand that the statement made by him before the Rent Controller on August 22, 1986, was made by him on behalf of the company and in his capacity as a director and that since the company had gone into liquidation, and he had ceased to be a director, he could not be held guilty of contempt. In reply to the present petition, he has taken a somersault. His stand is that the statement had been made by him in his individual capacity and a fresh tenancy in his favour came into being by reason of that statement. It is unfortunate that Shri Gupta is blowing hot and cold at the same time and does not seem to have respect for truth. He, in fact, does not hesitate to take inconsistent stands so long as they suit his interest. His conduct cannot but be deprecated. This, however, does not detract the court from deciding on the merits the issues that arise for consideration in the present petition. On the contentions raised before me by learned counsel for the parties, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne the matter afresh although there will be a presumption in favour of the sanction being regular. This is clear from the following observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Inder Mohan Lal v. Ramesh Khanna, AIR 1987 SC 1986, 1991 : "When the application under section 21 is filed by the landlord and/or tenant the Controller must satisfy himself by such inquiry as he may make, about the compulsive requirements of that provision. If he makes a mindless order, the court, when challenged at the time of execution will go into the question as to whether the twin conditions for sanction have really been fulfilled. Of course, there will be a presumption in favour of the sanction being regular, but it will still be open to a party to make out his case that in fact and in truth the conditions which make for a valid sanction were not present." Again, in para. 20 of the judgement, their Lordships observed as under (page 1991) : "But it is open in particular facts and circumstances of the case to prove to the satisfaction of the executing court that there was no collusion or conspiracy between the landlord and the tenant and the landlord did not mean what he said or that it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt. The Tribunal negatived the contention that leave of the Bombay High Court was necessary under section 446 of the Act and decreed the claim of the Corporation against the company and its directors. When the matter was taken to the Supreme Court, their Lordships held that in view of the provisions of section 41 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act which barred the jurisdiction of the civil courts, the Tribunal alone under section 15 of the said Act had the exclusive jurisdiction to decide the dispute which, therefore, did not fall within the purview of section 446 of the Act and so, no leave was necessary. Again, in S. V. Kondaskar, Official Liquidator v. V. M. Deshpande, ITO [1972] 83 ITR 685 ; [1972] 42 Comp Cas 168 (SC) when the winding up proceedings against the company were pending, the Income-tax Officer issued notices proposing to reopen the assessments of the company and to reassess it in respect of a period prior to the winding up. The question arose whether notices of reassessment were "legal proceedings" within the meaning of section 446 of the Act and whether the Income-tax Officer had the exclusive jurisdiction to make the assessment and further whether leave of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
