JUDGMENT

RANGANATH MISRA, J.:- Special Leave granted.

2. This is an appeal by the landlady whose application for being put in possession of the premises on the expiry of a limited tenancy of two years under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been dismissed by the Rent Controller, the Rent Control Tribunal and the High Court.

3. On 30th September, 1976, the appellant-landlady and the respondent-tenant appeared before Shri M. A. Khan, Additional Rent Controller for creation of a tenancy under S. 21 of the Act. The Additional Rent Controller recorded the statements of both the landlady and the prospective tenant and made the following order:

"Having regard to the facts stated in the petition and the statement of the parties made above permission under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act is granted to Smt. Yamuna Maloo applicant to let out ground floor of her premises No. H-2/104, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi comprising of drawing cum dining hall, two bed rooms with attached bath room, kitchen, parking place and a small lawn delineated in the enclosed plan Ex. Al, to Mr. Anand Swarup respondent for residential purposes for a limited period of two years with effect from 1- 10-76. "

4. After the expiry of the two year period, when the respondent did not vacate the premises, the landlady moved the Rent Controller for issuance of warrant of possession to which the tenant filed his objection. The Additional Rent Controller entertained the objection and dismissed the landladys petition for being put into possession. There upon the landlady moved the Rent Control Tribunal in appeal and when she failed before it, a second appeal was filed before the High Court which was dismissed in limine.

5. The Controller relied upon the judgment of this Court in S. B. Noronah v. Prem Kumari Khanna, (1980) 1 SCR 281 and came to hold:

"I have carefully gone through the execution application, the objections, the evidence on record, the original file in which the permission was granted and have heard the learned counsel for parties. I am of the view that the order dated 30-9-76 granting permission was not in accordance with law and that the applicant/ petitioner is not entitled to obtain possession of the premises in dispute under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act."

6. Noronahs case had stated (at p. 197 of AIR):

"Of course, there will be presumption in favour of the sanction being regular, but it will still be open to a party to make out his case that in fact and in truth the conditions which make for a valid sanction were not present."

7. It is interesting to note that by the time the appellants appeal came up for hearing before the Tribunal, Shri M.A. Khan who as an Additional Rent Controller had approved the tenancy by his order dated 30th September, 1976, on being judicially satisfied that the tenancy under S. 21 of the Act could be created had become the Rent Control Tribunal. He noticed this fact in his appellate order dated 11th April, 1986, by stating:.

"In this appeal, the validity and executability of the order dt. 30-9-76 is disputed which was passed by me as Addl. Rent Controller. Since there is no other Rent Control Tribunal, therefore, in exigency of the situation I have no option but to proceed to decide this appeal."

He concluded:

"The appellant in the application and in her statement did not give the reason for letting out the premises for two years only. She even did not give the reason in application for recovery of possession. In reply to the objection of the respondent, she states that she was residing in Vasant Vihar at a house which was allotted to her husband by the employer. There was no possibility of her vacating the said house and shifting to the disputed premises. The first floor of the disputed premises was also let out by her to another tenant for a limited period. She did not disclose that she intended to create a limited tenancy in respect of the first floor also. Further the