9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (1) TMI 349X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I want to let out to the respondent for residential purposes for the said period at rupees 425/- p.m. which is mentioned in Mark B with effect from the date of permission. I have never let out the portion to anybody earlier to it. My son and my mother were living in the said premises. My mother has not been feeling well. My son is studying in 9th class. After about three years my mother will be alright and my son will grow up and for them I shall require the premises after three years. RO AC ARC Statement of Shri V.S. Rahi, son of Sh. Thakur Gopal Singh, 45 years, teacher and Smt. Santosh Rahi w/o Shri V.S. Rahi, aged 45 years, teacher resident of 33/52, Prabhat Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. We want the premises for three years for the residential purposes from the date of permission. We are not in possession of the premises nor were we tenants in it. RO AC ARC ORDER This order will dispose of application under Section 21 DRC Act filed by Smt. Ram Chambeli applicant seeking permission to let out first floor of her premises No. 637 Double Storey, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi. It is stated that the first floor of the said premises comprising of two living rooms, k ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t that the property was not required by her for a period of three years but would be needed after that period for the use of her son and her mother who was unwell at that time, there was no ground to hold that the transaction was not genuine. The second appeal filed by the appellants against the order of the Tribunal was dismissed by the High Court. This appeal by special leave is filed against the judgment of the High Court. 4. Section 21 of the Act reads. 21. Where a landlord does not require the whole or any part of any premises for a particular period, and the landlord, after obtaining the permission of the Controller in the prescribed manner, lets the 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 and the tenant does not, on the expiry of the said period, vacate such premises, then, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 14 or in any other law, the Controller may, on an application made to him in this behalf by the landlord within such time as may be prescribed, place the landlord in vacant possession of the premises or part thereof by evicting the tenant and every other perso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equirements 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. 7. The appeal before us has to be considered against the above background. 8. It is urged by the appellants that the order passed under Section 21 of the Act in this case having been obtained on the basis of statements which were wrong, the application for eviction should dismissed. 9. While it is true that the Court should Proceed with the initial presumption that the order under Section 21 of he Act was a regular one, the Court should still examine the material placed before it by the tenant inducted under that provision in order to satisfy that there has not been any misuse of the said provision by the landlord taking advantage of the helpless situation in which the tenant was placed at the time when such order was obtained. 10. In the instant case it is seen that there there were three wrong statements made by the respondent when she approached the Additional Rent Controller seeking permission under Section 21 of the Act to lease out the property. First, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... short period and that the respondent bona fide anticipated that there would be a pressing necessity to reoccupy the premises at the end of the period which are the two crucial factors governing an order under Section 21 of the Act. The reasons given in this case are quite unconvincing. We are not satisfied that the respondent honestly believed when she applied for permission under Section 21 of the Act that she would be in need of the premises in question at the end of the stipulated period. On a consideration of the material before him, the Additional Rent Controller was right in holding that the permission under Section 21 of the Act had been obtained by the respondent on the basis of wrong statements but for which the permission would not have been accorded. 11. It is, however, urged that the appellants who had colluded with the respondent when permission was granted under Section 21 of the Act should not be now allowed to resile from the stand they had taken then. It is true that the appellants who were the weaker of the two parties did not question the truth of the statements made by the respondent when the permission was granted. But such collusion , if any, between the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
