Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The common defence put forth by the two respondents was that there was a single tenancy and not two tenancies and they were jointly inducted into possession of the entire leased portion even in the month of December 1975 under an oral lease and as such, their tenancy was not referable to the sanction given by the Rent Controller on 26/27.2.76. To substantiate their contentions, the respondents placed reliance on the payment of a sum of Rs.1,700 by them on 1;0.12.1975 as security deposit and the payment of a sum of Rs.5,100 by means of cheque on 29.12.1975 towards advance payment of rent for three months. They alleged that inspite of their having been inducted into possession in December 1975 itself, the respondent mislead them by saying that the oral tenancy required formal sanction by the Rent Controller and hence they should appear before the Rent Controller and have their statements recorded by him. It ws only after giving their statements before the Rent Controller they suspected the motives of the appellant and hence they refused to execute lease deeds in the month of March 1976 as desired by the appellant.
The Rent Controller. After a detailed consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties accepted the case of the respondents and held that an oral tenancy had been created in favour of the respondents even in the month of December 1975 and as such their tenancy rights were not governed by the sanction given by the Rent Controller under Section 21 of the Act and further more the sanction of the Rent Controller was vitiated by fraud in that it was obtained by suppressing the true facts from the notice of the Rent Controller. It was further held that the order of sanction of the Rent Controller suffered from an infirmity due to the appellant failing to glove the reasons for her wanting to let out the property for a limited period. We need not however concern ourselves about that aspect of the matter.
The Rent Control Tribunal, in the appeals preferred to it, however differed from the Rent Controller and held that even if he respondents had been inducted into possession in December 1975 under an oral tenancy, they must be deemed to have impliedly surrendered their earlier tenancy and consented to acquire fresh tenancy under the sanction granted by the Rent Controller on 26/27.2.76. On the PG NO 246 question whether the sanction of the Rent Controller was vitiated by fraud, the Appellate Tribunal held that the respondents ought to have brought to the notice of the Rent Controller without delay the fraud practised by the appellant and since they had failed to act promptly they were not entitled to seek nullification of the sanction of the Rent Controller on the ground of fraud. In accordance with its conclusions, the Tribunal allowed the appeals preferred by the appellant and held that the Execution Applications were maintainable and directed the respondents to deliver possession to the appellant of the leased portions in a month's time.

(4) Even if the order of sanction was vitiated by fraud, the tenancy created thereunder was only a voidable transaction and not a void one and, as such, by reason of the respondents having failed to avoid the contract and instead having availed the benefit of it for the full period of two years, they were not entitled to refute the validity or the binding nature of the sanction granted by the Rent Controller for creation of limited tenancy rights in their favour.

(5) Even if it were to be held that the respondents had already been inducted into possession of the leased premises on an oral tenancy in the month of December 1975 itself, they must be deemed to have impliedly surrendered their tenancy rights under the oral lease when they agreed to accept the limited tenancy rights given to them in pursuance of the sanction of the Rent Controller.