PUKHRAJ JAIN v. PADMA KASHYAP AIR 1990 SC 77

Tenant inducted in 1979, for three years, by the landlord under a written agreement, in C-4/33, Safdarjang Development Area, New Delhi, with permission of Controller under Section 21 of Delhi Rent Control Act (for brevity the 'Act') seeks leave of this Court on limited question of law if proceedings for recovery of possession under Section 21 of the Act could be initiated and continued by legal representatives of the landlord who had obtained permission but who died before expiry of period of tenancy. Answer of it shall depend, primarily, on construction of word 'landlord' used in Section 21.
Is there any justification for construing the word "landlord" in a narrow sense so as to restrict it, only, to the person who made the application and obtained permission. "Landlord" has been defined in Section 2(e). Expression, "for the time being" makes it clear, that landlord has to be understood in praesenti. That is anyone entitled to receive rent is the landlord. It does not visualise past or future landlord. Therefore, the word "landlord", on plain reading of Section 21 does not warrant construction of the word in any other manner. Basis for submission, however, that landlord in second part of Section 21 entitling him to claim vacant possession should be confined to the person who obtained permission was founded on use of expression, "who does not require the whole or any part of the premises for a particular period". Attempt was made to personalise eviction proceedings by linking it with the person.
Vacation is not linked with landlord but with time. Expiry of it obliges tenant to vacate. If he does not then the landlord may approach Controller for putting him in vacant possession. Which landlord? Obviously whosoever is the landlord at affected.
Even otherwise an action for eviction abates only if the cause of action does not survive. What is the cause of action for an application for vacant possession in Section 21 : death of landlord or expiry of time for which tenancy was created. Obviously the latter, the failure of tenant to honour his commitment to vacate the premises after expiry of time for which he was inducted with permission of Controller.

Vijay Kumar Bajaj v. Inder Sain Minocha AIR 1982 Del. 260

In that decision, in the light of Section 21, the following questions were posed: (1) Whether the permission under Section 21 of the Act is invalid in view of Supreme Court judgment in S.B. Noronah case if reasons for not requiring the premises by the landlord for a particular period are not disclosed in his application or his statement before the Controller? (2) Whether before or after permission execution of any agreement in writing to let the premises for the fixed period is necessary, if so, whether such a document requires registration? (3) Whether the proposed agreement of tenancy in writing submitted along with the application under Section 21 of the Act, in this appeal required registration?” The questions were answered by the High Court as follows: (1) Not necessarily. The landlord or the tenant may be able to show that cogent reasons did exist or were within the knowledge of the parties as to why the landlord did not require the whole or a part of his premises for a specified period. (2) No registration is necessary. The agreement in writing may be entered into either before or after grant of permission. (3) An agreement in writing submitted along with the application under Section 21 of the Act is really a proposed agreement. It comes into effect only after the grant of permission under Section 21 of the Act. It does not require registration.

INDER MOHAN LAL v. RAMESH KHANNA AIR 1987 SC 1986

The Rent Controller after recording the statements of the appellant and the respondent made an order permitting creation of limited tenancy only for a period of two years to residential purposes to which the respondent had agreed upon. It may be material to refer to the fact that the appellant in his application under Section 21 of the Rent Act had stated as follows: “I do not require the premises for a period of two years from July 15, 1976. The purpose of letting shall be residential only and the premises are shown in the site plan Ex. A-1. The proposed agreement is Ex. A-2. Limited tenancy under Section 21 of the Act may be allowed to be created for the said period.”
question, therefore, that arises for consideration of this Court is whether in view of the requirements of Section 21 of the Rent Act, was the permission invalid?
Section 21 of the Rent Act reads as follows: “ Where a landlord does not require the whole or any part of any premises for a particular period, and the landlord, after obtaining the permission of the Controller in the prescribed manner, lets the whole of the premises or part thereof as a residence for such period as may be agreed to in writing between the landlord and the tenant and the tenant does not, on the expiry of the said period, vacate such premises, then, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 14 or in any other law, the Controller may, on an application made to him in this behalf by the landlord within such time as may be prescribed, place the landlord in vacant possession of the premises or part thereof by evicting the tenant and every other person who may be in occupation of such premises. 12. An analysis of this section makes it clear that in order to attract Section 21; the first condition is that the landlord does not require the whole or part of any premises for a particular period. If that condition is fulfilled then the said landlord after obtaining the permission of the Controller in the prescribed manner lets the whole of the premises or part thereof as a residence for such period as may be agreed to in writing between the landlord and the tenant does not on the expiry of the said period, vacate such premises, then notwithstanding anything contained in Section 14 or in any other law, the Controller may, on an application made to him in this behalf by the landlord within such time as may be prescribed, order the eviction of the tenant. Therefore the first condition must be that the landlord must not require the premises either in whole or part of any premises for a particular period. Secondly, the landlord must obtain the permission of the Controller in the prescribed manner. Thirdly, letting of the whole or part of the premises must be for residence. Fourthly, such letting out must be for such period as may be agreed in writing.
The sanction granted under Section 21, if it has been procured by fraud and collusion cannot withstand invalidity because, otherwise, high public policy will be given as hostage to successful collusion. The doctrine of estoppel cannot be invoked to render valid a proceeding which the legislature has on grounds of public policy subjected to mandatory conditions which are shown to be absent. As between unequals the law steps in and as against statutes there is no estoppel, especially where collusion and fraud are made out and high purpose is involved.
There must not be any fraud or collusion. There is a presumption of regularity. But it is open in particular facts and circumstances of the case to prove to the satisfaction of the executing court that there was no (sic) collusion or conspiracy between the landlord and the tenant and the landlord did not mean what he said or that it was a fraud or that the tenant agreed because the tenant was wholly unequal to the landlord. In the instant case none of these conditions were fulfilled. There is no evidence in this case that when the landlord stated that he did not require the premises in question for a particular period, he did not mean what he stated or that he made a false statement.
It is not necessary to state under Section 21 the reasons why the landlord did not require the premises in question for any particular period. Nor is there any presumption that in all cases the tenants are the weaker sections. the permission was valid and the order permitting limited tenancy was not a mindless order but one passed after application of the mind taking the two relevant facts under Section 21 of the Act into consideration, it is not necessary to discuss these decisions any further. In view of the fact that Section 21 is a code by itself, no question of any further agreement in writing which has to be registered arises.