Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(3) On the expiry of the stipulated period of tenancy viz. two years, in both these cases the respondent-landlady moved two separate execution applications in July 1978 for being put back into possession of the demised premises. Notice thereof was issued to both the appellants and they filed separate objections in the two execution applications. However, the same were couched in identical language and raised a common defense. Their primary defense was that the entire rear portion of the property N-57, Panchsheel Park, consisting of the ground floor, first floor and the second floor had been let out by the respondent with effect from 10th December, 1975 to both of them jointly at Rs. 1700.00 per mensem and they paid a sum of Rs. 1700.00 to her by way of security deposit. Thereafter they paid Rs.5100.00 as rent for three months in advance with effect from 10th December. 1975 by means of a cheque drawn in favor of the respondent. The said cheque was duly encashed. They averred that thus an oral agreement of tenancy came into being between the parties and the entire premises, amended to above, were let out to them for a period of two years ending 31st December, 1977. They further contended that in February 1976 the respondent-landlady told them that the oral agreement of tenancy be formalised and they should sign the written agreement of tenancy. On this pretext she obtained signatures of both of them on various papers. However, she assured them that the oral tenancy already created in their favor would continue. The respondent further told them to appear in the court as the agreement of tenancy had to be registered. In view of the assurance given by the respondent that the oral tenancy created in their favor in December 1975 would continue and their rights would not be prejudiced in any manner, the appellants signed the various documents presented to them by the respondent in good faith and they also signed the proceedings which were recorded by the staff of the Presiding Officer in absolute good faith. However, subsequently the respondent again asked them in March 1976 to execute lease-deeds pursuant to the orders of the court. This excited their suspicion and they refused to sign any such lease-deed but the respondent again assured them that their old tenancy Would continue. Thus, the basic stand of the appellants was that they were not in occupation of the premises in question pursuant to any permission granted by the Additional Rent Controller under Section 21 of the Act and they were in occupation of the premises in question as joint tenants' under the old tenancy which still subsisted.

(5) The learned Additional Rent Controller upheld the plea of the appellants regarding the oral tenancy with effect from 10th December, 1975 vide his order dated 20 th December, 1982 and found that the permission granted to-the respondent under Section 21 of the Act was vitiated by fraud practiced by her in not disclosing the court the factum of the premises having been already let to the appellants in December,1975. He further observed that no reasons had been furnished by the respondent turn creating a limited tenancy for two years in favor of the appellants either in her applications for grant of permission under Section 21 of the Act or in her execution applications and the reasons assigned by her during the course of her evidence "were non-existent and unsustainable. So, he allowed the objections and dismissed both the execution applications.

(17) Adverting to these two letters, counsel for the appellants has canvassed vigorously that the contention of the appellants that the premises had been let to them in December 1975 under an oral agreement of tenancy at Rs. 1700.00 per mensem and that the so-called permission obtained under Section 21 of the Act was just a make-believe or a legal formality to arm the respondent-landlady with coercive process to recover the possession is amply borne out by the fact that even the landlady had been asserting that the term of their tenancy ended on 31st December 1977 in contra-distinction to the term of limited tenancy under Section 21 which would have expired on 31st March 1978. Letter Ex. Dhw 1/RX 1 further signifies that the amount of Rs. 3400.00 represented rent for two months which was being paid by both the appellants jointly. The learned counsel for the respondent has, however, invited my attention to the fact that both the receipts Ex Ow 1/1 and Ow 1/2 are typed on the same sheet of piper and presumably they were got typed at one and the same time although the two receipts bear different dates. Be that as it may, I do not think it would hardly make any difference because the genuineness of the transaction of the oral tenancy in favor of both the appellants is amply borne out by other evidence on record. On consideration of these documents as also other oral as well as documentary evidence on record, the learned Additional Rent Controller arrived at the conclusion that the respondent had let out the premises in question to the appellants with effect from 10th December 1975 and the appellants were in possession of the same. Since then this is obviously a finding of fact and unfortunately for the respondent-landlady even the Tribunal has concurred therein. He has held that the appellants have successfully shown that they were in possession of the property since December 1975 and that the demised premises had been let to the appellants before the limited tenancy under Section 21 of the Act was created. This being purely a finding of fact, I do not think it will be open to this Court sitting in second appeal to re-appraise the evidence and come to an independent finding of its own especially when nothing has come on record to suggest that there has been any mis-reading or mis-construction of evidence on record or mis-application of any provision of law of evidence, which would vitiate the same.

(21) Hence, their Lordships felt persuaded to hold that the Tribunal and the High Court had approached the said case in a mechanical way and had failed to apply correctly the ratio of the decision in S.B. Noronah case (supra) to the facts before them. The landlady was, therefore, held not entitled to invoke the remedy under Section 21 of the Act to recover possession of the premises. Reference in this context be also made to M/s. Delux Pictures (Delhi) v.Brig Pritam Pal Singh (Retd), 1984(2) RC.J. 185. The instant case in my view stands on a much stronger footing for the appellants inasmuch as there was a total suppression of the vital fact that the premises had been already let to both the appellants jointly under an oral agreement of tenancy which was still subsisting when the order for creation of limited tenancy was sought. The fact that both the appellants meekly affirmed the statement made by the respondent-landlady separately in the two petitions made by her under Section 21 of the Act simply demonstrates that they had no alternative but to submit to the dictates of the respondent-landlady. There cannot be a clearer case of oppression than the present one which points out Unmistakably to the fact that. the permission under Section 21 of the Act was obtained to serve as a cloak to cover up the real states of affairs. Hence, there is no escape from the conclusion that the permission granted by the Additional Rent Controller under Section 21 for creation of a limited tenancy in favor of the appellants separately in respect of two separate premises is vitiated by fraud practiced on the court. Various authorities were cited by counsel for the respondent but I need not advert to the same as the decision in each of them turns on their own facts. The instant being a manifestly clear case of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi, the sanction granted by the Additional Rent Controller for creation of limited tenancy must be quashed as being void and non-est and the original oral tenancy must be deemed to be still subsisting. Surely it could not be wiped out by resort to dubious and questionable method of obtaining permission For creation of limited tenancy under Section 21.