Laga Exporters India (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Sh. Rajinder Kumar Sachdeva
1999 Latest Caselaw 878 Del

ORDER

Vijender Jain, J.

1. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal of an application under Section 19 (1)and (2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act by the Additional Rent Controller on 23rd November, 1998, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal which was also dismissed vide an order dated 9th August, 1989, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Mr. Rohtagi, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Rent Control Tribunal decided that the application under Section 19(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act was maintainable, however ultimately held that the provisions of Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act was not applicable retrospectively as the cause of action accrued to the respondent in 1981 when he filed a suit on the basis that the petitioner was in arrears of rent from 1st December, 1981 and the suit was filed for the recovery of possession of the premises on the termination of period of tenancy. As per provision of Section 19 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the tenant is entitled to recover possession only if the landlord had recovered possession from him in pursuance of an order under Clause (e) of Section 14(1) or under Sections 14A, 14B, 14C and 14D and Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Therefore, the Rent Control Tribunal held that the possession was recovered by the petitioner under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act and Section 19 of the Delhi Rent Control Act was applicable.

3. The Rent Control Tribunal fell in error while holding that the possession was recovered under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. It was an admitted case of the petitioner that he delivered the possession of the premises in question in civil litigation pursuant to his own undertaking before the High Court in RSA No. 8/87. The possession of the premises in question was not delivered to the decree holder in execution under Delhi Rent Control Act. Therefore, the finding of the Rent Control Tribunal was contrary to the record in this case. However, the Rent Control Tribunal has set aside the order of the Additional Rent Controller only on the ground of applicability of Section 199 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The end result of the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller as well as by Rent Control Tribunal is that the petition has been dismissed although for different reasons. I do not find any merit in the petition.

4. Petition dismissed.