NDLI: Mohan Singh Vs. Late Amar Singh Through The Lrs.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Delhi Rent Control Act 1872 1860 Ss. 192 and 196 Penal Code Ss. 101 and 102 1958 : Sections 21 and 38 Evidence Act
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Delhi Rent Control Act, 1952 (38 of 1952)
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Dismissed
Headnote	Rent Control and Eviction :Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 : Section 21. Tenancy-For a limited period-Permission for-Tenant raised objection after expiry of limited period of tenancy that landlord obtained permission by fraud and misrepresentation-Held : Such objection should be raised before the Rent Controller/Additional Rent Controller before expiry of limited period of tenancy and not after its expiry-The tenant should raise such an objection immediately after he comes to know of the landlord's fraud and misrepresentation-There must be exceptional circumstances for allowing the tenant to raise such a plea after expiry of the limited period of tenancy-Burden to prove fraud, collusion, misrepresentation etc. lies on the person alleging it-In the facts of the case, no exceptional circumstances made out by the tenant to enable him to challenge the order of Additional Rent Controller granting permission for limited period of tenancy.Tenancy-For a limited period-Permission for-Landlord filed application for recovery of possession after expiry of limited period of tenancy-Tenant raised objection at that stage that landlord obtained permission for limited period of tenancy by fraud and misrepresentation-Additional Rent Controller (ARC) granted permission to the tenant to lead evidence in support of his objection and allowed the landlord to repudiate such evidence and stayed dispossession of the tenant till the decision on the objection-Held: Order of ARC is interlocutory in nature which would not prevent the landlord from contending before the Appellate Tribunal that the tenant was not entitled to raise objection to the validity of the permission after the expiry of limited period of tenancy. Sections 21 and 38-Tenancy-For a limited period-Permission for--Granted initially for two years-After its expiry landlord and tenant filed a joint application for a further limited period-Additional Rent Controller (A.R. C.) granted the second permission after recording statements of landlord and tenant-Landlord filed application under S.21 after expiry of limited period of tenancy for recovery of possession-Tenant raised objection that the second permission was obtained by landlord by fraud and misrepresentation-ARC held that permission was without jurisdiction and· could not be enforced--In the appeal. by landlord under S. 38 before Rent Control Tribunal tenant raised a new plea in his application for additional evidence that on the date of grant of the second permission on the basis of his alleged statement, he had left the country for Germany which showed that the permission for limited tenancy was obtained by landlord by fraud and misrepresentation-Held: Burden is on the tenant to prove he· was not present in co wt on the day when the second permission was granted but tenant failed to discharge this burden-Further, rejoinder filed by the tenant before the ARC is tampered with at a later point of time and in all probability when the matter was pending before the Appellate Tribunal in order to support the new plea raised by the tenant for the first time-Moreover, records of ARC and Tribunal are tampered with by the tenant; visa alleged to have been is.sued by German Embassy to the tenant and immigration stamp found thereon is not genuine; tenant also made an attempt to hoodwink the Supreme Court and succeeded in getting special leave and order staying dispossession-Registrar of Supreme Court directed to file a complaint before the appropriate court and set the criminal law in motion against the tenant-Evidence Act, 1872, Ss. 101 and 102-Penal Code, 1860, Ss. 192 and 196. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:Eviction suit-Rejoinder-Filing of-By tenant-Additional evidence-Taking of-Tampering of records-Prevention of-Held: Direction with regard to proceedings under Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and regular civil courts issued-Delhi High Court should frame appropriate rules of practice to be observed by all subordinate courts-Provision of the statute, Rules and CPC should be strictly complied with-Procedure for filing of rejoinder and application for additional evidence by a party laid down-Practice. and Procedure.The appellant-tenant was granted permission for tenancy for a limited period of two years in respect of the premises belonging to the respondent-landlord under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Before expiry of this limited period of tenancy a joint application by the appellant and the respondent was filed before the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) for permission to create a limited tenancy for a further period of two years. After recording the statements of the appellant and respondent permission was granted for a further limited period of three years.On the expiry of the .second limited period the appellant did not vacate the premises and, therefore, the respondent filed an application for recovery of possession. The appellant raised objection at that stage that the second permission for the limited period was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation by the respondent. The ARC granted permission to the appellant to lead evidence in support of his objection and allowed the landlord to repudiate the evidence led by the appellant and stayed dispossession of the appellant till the decision on the objection. The ARC held that the second permission granted under Section 21 of the Act was without jurisdiction and could not be enforced. Accordingly, the objections of the appellant were upheld and the respondent's application for recovery of possession was dismissed. Being aggrieved the respondent filed an appeal under Section 38 of the Act before the Rent Control Tribunal where the appellant raised a new plea in his application for additional evidence that on the date of grant of the second permission on the basis of his alleged statement, he had left the country for Germany which showed that the second permission for limited tenancy was obtained by the respondent by manipulation and fraud played on the court. The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the ground that the appellant did not raise the plea about his absence before the ARC. The appellant's revision before the High Court was dismissed. Hence this appeal: On behalf or the appellant it was contended that the appellant was not present in court when the second permission was granted as he had left the country for Germany; and that the order passed by the ARC granting permission to the appellant to lead evidence was final and it was not open to the respondent to contend before the Tribunal that the respondent was not entitled to raise objection to the validity of the second permission after expiry of the limited period of tenancy.On behalf of the respondent it was contended that the rejoinder filed by the appellant before the ARC was tampered with at a later point of time.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. Srinivasan
Neutral Citation	1998 INSC 335
Petitioner	Mohan Singh
Respondent	Late Amar Singh Through The Lrs.
SCR	[1998] Supp. (1) S.C.R. 252
Judgement Date	1998-09-01
Case Number	14918

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Mohan Singh Vs. Late Amar Singh Through The Lrs.

Please Log-in to view this content

Sebastiao Luis Fernandes (dead) Through Lrs. & Ors. Vs. K.v.p. Shastri (dead) Through Lrs. & Ors.

State of Haryana Vs. Ram Singh

Panchdeo Singh Vs. State of Bihar

State of M.p. Through C.b.i. Etc. Vs. Paltan Mallah and Ors. Etc.

Raghbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana

Sitaramacharya (dead) Through Lrs. Vs. Gururajacharya (dead) Through Lrs.

N.c. Daga Vs. Inder Mohan Singh Rana

Prem Singh Vs. State of Nct of Delhi

Kehar Singh & Ors. Vs. State (delhi Admn.)

Mohan Singh Vs. Late Amar Singh Through The Lrs.

Mohan Singh Vs. Late Amar Singh Through The Lrs.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Sebastiao Luis Fernandes (dead) Through Lrs. & Ors. Vs. K.v.p. Shastri (dead) Through Lrs. & Ors.

State of Haryana Vs. Ram Singh

Panchdeo Singh Vs. State of Bihar

State of M.p. Through C.b.i. Etc. Vs. Paltan Mallah and Ors. Etc.

Raghbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana

Sitaramacharya (dead) Through Lrs. Vs. Gururajacharya (dead) Through Lrs.

N.c. Daga Vs. Inder Mohan Singh Rana

Prem Singh Vs. State of Nct of Delhi

Kehar Singh & Ors. Vs. State (delhi Admn.)

Mohan Singh Vs. Late Amar Singh Through The Lrs.