INDER MOHAN LAL V. RAMESH KHANNA, AIR 1987 SC 1986
FACTS
The appellant had made an application on or about July 15, 1976 before the Rent Controller to let out the premises for a period of two years under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The Rent Controller after recording the statements of the appellant and the respondent made an order permitting creation of limited tenancy only for a period of two years to residential purposes to which the respondent had agreed upon.
Following which, Rent Controller passed the order for the limited tenancy to be created for a period of two years from July 15, 1976.
The appellant filed an application on November 6, 1978 for eviction of the respondent as the respondent had refused to vacate the premises in spite of his statement made before the Rent Controller.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Rent Controller: granted permission for eviction.
Rent Control Appellate Tribunal: upheld the eviction order.
High Court: High Court of Delhi allowed the appeal. The main points upon which the High Court has relied are:
firstly, on the materials put forward before the Rent Controller for sanction under Section 21 of the Rent Act, no reason had been stated as to why the premises in question was not required for a limited period;
secondly, it was not stated as to how the premises in question was dealt with;
thirdly, the High Court was of the view that there was no writing and no lease registered after the permission was granted.
ISSUE
Was it necessary to seek a valid order under Section 21 to state that reason and if permission was granted on satisfaction of the Rent Controller on other conditions without being satisfied as to why the landlord did not require the premises in dispute for a limited period, the order would suffer from the vice of being a mindless order?
JUDGEMENT
The court observed that, so far as the second ground is concerned, the High Court was obviously and factually incorrect, this was a “newly built” premises and further that there was no prior letting. Therefore, it cannot be denied that how the premises in question was dealt with before the letting out had been clearly stated.
On the analysis of S.21 of the Act following conditions were proposed:
Landlord must indicate to the authority before which sanction was sought for letting what was the particular period for which he could spare the accommodation. The fact that a landlord and a potential tenant together apply, setting out the formal ingredients of Section 21, did not relieve the Controller from being vigilant to inquire and satisfy himself about the requisites of the landlord’s non-requirement “for a particular period” and the letting itself being “as a resident”. A fraud on the statute could not be permitted especially because of the grave mischief that might be perpetrated in such event.
The court highlighted that it would be a terrible blow to the rent control law if Section 21 were freely permitted to subvert the scheme of Section 14.
If the Rent Controller 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.
Section 21 only gives sanction if the landlord makes a statement to the satisfaction of the court and the tenant accepts that the landlord does not require the premises for a limited period; this statement of the landlord must be bona fide. The purpose must be residence. There must not be any fraud or collusion. There is a presumption of regularity. 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 a fraud or that the tenant agreed because the tenant was wholly unequal to the landlord. In the instant case none of these conditions were fulfilled. It is manifest that there is no evidence to show that the Controller did not apply his mind.
Therefore, the court held that sanction under Section 21 in the instant case was not a nullity. The onus was on the tenant to show that it was so. In view of the fact that Section 21 is a code by itself, no question of any further agreement in writing which has to be registered arises.
The appeal was allowed, the order and judgement of the High Court was set aside and the order and judgement of the Rent Control Tribunal was restored.