Case: V.S. Rahi And Anr Vs. Smt. Ram Chambeli

2. The respondent Smt. Ram Chambeli leased out the premises in question to the appellants under an order dated December 22, 1977 passed by the Additional Rent Controller in suit No. M/798/77 under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (Act 59 of 1958) (hereinafter referred to as ‘thethe relevant part of which readsOn the expiry of the period of three years mentioned in the above order the respondent filed an application before the Additional Rent Controller for possession of the premises. The appellants filed objections to the said application stating that the respondent was comfortably living with her husband and son in the ground floor of the building; that she was not in need of the first floor of the building which had been leased out in their favour; that the statement that her mother was living with her was not true; that her son was studying in the 7th class in 1977 and not in the 9th class as stated by her before the Rent Controller in 1977 and that the Rent Controller had permitted the leasing out of the building under Section 21 of the Act without applying his mind. It was further pleaded that the application had been filed with a view to extracting higher rent. The appellants also stated that the statement of the respondent that she had not leased out the building earlier to any body else was not true. After going through the affidavits filed by the parties in support of their cases the Additional Rent Controller held that the respondent had obtained the permission under Section 21 of the Act by making wrong statements and accordingly revoked the said permission. Consequently the appellants could not be evicted under that section. Aggrieved by the order of the Additional Rent Controller, the respondent filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and directed the eviction of the appellants. The Tribunal observed that when theController had been informed by the respondent right at the time when the permission was granted under Section 21 of the Act 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.

Court's reasoning:
9. While it is true that the Court should proceed with the initial presumption that the order under Section 21 of the 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 itself 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 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 is not true that the building had not been leased out earlier. Now it is admitted before us that there was one Kataria occupying the building as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 100 only and he had vacated the same about four or five months before the date on which the order was made under Section 21 while it is true that he had been there as a tenant even before the respondent purchased the building in the year 1972. After he vacated the building, it was leased out to the appellants on a rent of Rs. 425 per mensem. Secondly, it is admitted that themother was not living with her. It is now admitted before us that the woman who is more than 75 years old described as the mother of the respondent in the statement of the respondent recorded by the Additional Rent Controller when permission was given under Section 21 is the sister of thefather although in the course of the proceedings before the Additional Rent Controller out of which this appeal arises, she was described as the adoptive mother of the respondent. It is now stated that she is the foster mother of the respondent and that she came with the respondent to the residenceof her husband after her marriage. It is stated that she was suffering from cataract in her eyes; that it was not ripe for being treated in 1977 when the order was passed under Section 21 of the Act and that it was expected that after the contract was removed she would need the building in the occupation of the appellants which is equal in size to the ground floor in the occupation of the respondent. Thirdly, the son of the respondent was an young boy studying in the seventh class in 1977 and not in the ninth class. From the foregoing it is obvious that the respondent had suppressed that there was a tenant in the building who had vacated only a few months before the date of the application under Section 21 of the Act; she made false statement about the relationship with her so-called foster mother; had not disclosed the nature of her sickness which was expected to be cured in three years; had stated that her son was studying in the ninth class to make it appear that he would be sufficiently old at the end of the period of three years and that he would be in need of extra accommodation. These statements which war in the nature of half-truths were apparently made in order to make good the plea that there was only a temporary necessity to lease out the building for a 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 satisfiedC 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.The Tribunal and the High Court have approached the present case in a mechanical way and have failed to apply correctly the ratio of the decision incase (supra) to the facts before them. We are of the view that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the respondent is not entitled to invoke the remedy under Section 21 of the Act to recover possession of the premises.