INDER MOHAN LAL versus RAMESH KHANNA

INDER MOHAN LAL versus RAMESH KHANNA

The permission granted by the Rent Controller under section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act was valid as the statutory predicates were satisfied: the landlord stated bona fide his non-requirement of the premises for a fixed period, and the tenant accepted this before the Controller. It was not necessary to articulate further reasons for the non-requirement, nor was it necessary to execute a subsequent registered lease after the Controller's order, given that section 21 is a code in itself. The longstanding practice and jurisprudence of the Delhi High Court support this position, and adherence to such view preserves legal certainty and settled transactions.

Parties
Appellant: Inder Mohan Lal; Respondent: Ramesh Khanna
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
04 August 1987
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Delhi High Court Judgment Dated 19th July 1985 in Second Appeal No. 374 of 1980
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Judgment and order of the Delhi High Court set aside; judgment and order of the Rent Control Tribunal restored.
Legal Topics
Limited Tenancy Under Delhi Rent Control Act, Eviction Procedures, Section 21 Requirements, Validity of Rent Controller's Permission, Registration of Agreement
Rent Control Property Law Limited Tenancy Under Delhi Rent Control Act Eviction Procedures Section 21 Requirements Validity of Rent Controller's Permission Registration of Agreement

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Inder Mohan Lal

Appellant

Ramesh Khanna

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Delhi High Court Judgment Dated 19th July 1985 in Second Appeal No. 374 of 1980

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the permission granted by the Rent Controller under section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 was valid despite the absence of a specific reason stated for the landlord's non-requirement of the premises for a limited period.
  2. 2 Whether a written and registered lease is required subsequent to the Rent Controller granting permission for limited tenancy under section 21.

Ratio Decidendi

The permission granted by the Rent Controller under section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act was valid as the statutory predicates were satisfied: the landlord stated bona fide his non-requirement of the premises for a fixed period, and the tenant accepted this before the Controller. It was not necessary to articulate further reasons for the non-requirement, nor was it necessary to execute a subsequent registered lease after the Controller's order, given that section 21 is a code in itself. The longstanding practice and jurisprudence of the Delhi High Court support this position, and adherence to such view preserves legal certainty and settled transactions.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Judgment and order of the Delhi High Court set aside; judgment and order of the Rent Control Tribunal restored.

Orders

  • Eviction order granted by the Rent Controller and upheld by the Appellate Tribunal stands restored.
  • Appellant entitled to costs of appeal.