Judgment

R. S. PATHAK, J.:- Special leave granted.

2. This is a landladys appeal by special leave directed against the order of the High Court of Delhi dismissing her second appeal in limine. The appellant is the owner of the premises No. F-8/17, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. It is a single storeyed house. She let out the premises for a limited period of two years to the respondent, who is a judicial officer. She did so after obtaining the requisite permission under S. 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act on April 22, 1980. A registered deed was executed between the parties in that behalf. The deed recorded the undertaking of the respondent to vacate the premises at the end of two years. The two years expired on April 21, 1982 but the respondent did not hand over possession of the premises to the appellant. Accordingly the appellant prayed for an order directing delivery of possession of the premises to her. A warrant of possession was issued.

2A. On Oct. 20, 1982 the respondent filed his objection, alleging that the order granting permission under S. 21 of the Act was obtained by fraud practised on the Rent Controller and was a nullity. It was asserted that the premises were constructed in the year 1973 and were let out to an official of the Government under S. 21 of the Act for a period of one year. On the official vacating the premises after one year, it was alleged, they were let out to the respondent at a rent of Rs. 725/-per mensem in the first week of April 1974. as a regular tenant. It was said that on the request of the appellant the respondent joined in an application for permission under S. 21 of the Act. When the appellant applied for permission, it is alleged, she did not disclose to the Rent Controller that earlier also she had inducted a person as tenant after obtaining such permission. On the expiry of three years, the respondent said, the appellant again, in the year 1977, obtained permission under S. 21 of the Act for letting out the premises at an enhanced rent of Rs. 825/- per mensem for a limited period of two years to the respondent. That period expired in April 1980. It was thereafter that the appellant obtained permission under S. 21 of the Act for letting out the premises to the respondent for a period of two years. The respondent urged that he was in uninterrupted possession since April 1974 and that no ground had been disclosed, by the appellant in the application for permission under S. 21 of the Act made in the year 1980 indicating the reason for letting out the premises for a limited period of two years. It is alleged that permission was granted mechanically by the Rent Controller, and that it could not be recognised as binding on the respondent.

3. The appellant filed her reply to the objection and vehemently denied that the order under S. 21 of the Act granting permission in 1980 was a nullity or had been obtained by fraud or that any material fact had been withheld in the application for permission. The appellant asserted that in the beginning the premises had been let out to an official of the Government for a period of three years commencing from August 29, 1973, but the tenant vacated the premises after 6 or 7 months and thereafter it became necessary to let out the premises to the respondent on April 15, 1974 after obtaining permission under S. 21 of the Act. It was denied that the respondent had already occupied the premises as a regular tenant before permission under S. 21 of the Act had been granted. It was maintained that the respondent occupied the premises on April 15, 1974 pursuant to the permission under S. 21 of the Act. The appellant stated further that the respondent had given notice to the appellant on February 27, 1977 expressing his intention to vacate the premises and that in fact he did vacate the premises on that date after settling the account in respect of the rent. But a few days after leaving the premises the respondent again approached the appellant for taking the premises on rent.