Judgement

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J.:- This appeal by special leave is from the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi dated 19th of July, 1985.* The appellant had made an application on or about 15th of July, 1976 before the Rent Controller to let out the premises for a period of two years under S. 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Rent Act). 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 for 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 S. 21 of the Rent Act had stated as follows :

* Reported in 1985 Rajdhani LR 492 : (1985) 2 Ren CJ 339.

"I do not require the premises for a period of two years from 15-7-76. 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 S. 21 of the Act may be allowed to be created for the said period."

2. The respondent agreed to the aforesaid statement and stated as follows :

"I have heard the statement of the petitioner and I accept it as correct. I have no objection. I shall vacate the premises after the expiry of two years from 15-7-76. The purpose of letting shall be residential only."

3. Upon this the Rent Controller passed the following order :

"This is an application filed under S. 21 of the Act for permission to create limited tenancy for a period of two years from 15-7-76. The purpose of letting shall be residential only and the premises is shown in the site plan Ex. A-1. The proposed agreement is Ex. A-2. From the perusal of the statements of the parties I am satisfied that as at present the petitioner does not require the premises. . Therefore, limited tenancy is allowed to be created for a period of two years from 15-7-76."

4. The appellant filed an application on 6th November, 1978 for eviction of the respondent as the respondent had refused to vacate the premises in spite of his statement made before the Rent Controller. The appellant filed an application on the said date under S. 21 of the Rent Act on behalf of himself and his family members claiming possession of the premises for-their bona fide need and use. The appellant contended that he (the appellant) was a retired official and was living in a rented house while the respondent was a rich man doing business in jewellery and was also owning a house in Delhi In the application made under S. 21 of the Rent Act the appellant had stated that the appellant owned a newly built house in the New Friends colony comprising of dining drawing, three bed rooms with attached bath rooms, a study room, family lounge and a garage. The appellant had further stated that he did not require the premises for the personal residence for a period of two years. The appellant had also stated in that application, that the appellant had agreed to let it out to the respondent for the first time on the terms and conditions set out in the proposed lease deed for a period of two years. It was stated that the respondent had heard the statement and recorded that he had no objection and would vacate the premises after expiry of two years. Subsequently, when the second appeal was pending in the Delhi High Court, the appellant had filed an application for early hearing in which he had stated that when the construction of the house in question was completed the appellants father R. B. Nanak Chand, Advocate, was old and alone (the appellants mother had died earlier and other brother and sister being away from Delhi) and in view of his fathers ailing health the appellant was living with him in the rented premises at 4-Flag Staff Road, Delhi to look after his old and ailing father. It was in those circumstances that the appellant had decided to let out the suit premises for a limited period of two years only. It may b