( 1 ) THIS is a petition filed by the landlords/petitioners against the order dated 2. 9. 9- passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi upholding the objection of the tenant filed after the expiry of the term of limited tenancy granted by the Additional Ren Controller under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act and dismissing the petition of the petitioners for the recovery of possession by holding that the permission grantee under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act as void.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case, in brief, are as under:-

( 3 ) IT is alleged by the petitioners that the petitioners are the owners of the property bearing No. C-204a Greater Kailash Part I, New Delhi. The petitioners have bee) staying at Thailand for the last few years. The elder brother of the petitioners, who otherwise attorney of the petitioners, had been living in the said house and on accoun of his having built his own house, he shifted to his house in Malviya Nagar, New Delhi making the demised premises available for letting out. It is alleged by the petitioner that one Major V. M. R. James, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents approached the petitioners for letting out the property to him for a period of five year under the provisions of Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Accordingly, per mission under section 2. 1 of the said Act was granted for a period of five years which was valid upto 2nd May 1983. It is relevant to note here that Major V. M. R. James die (on 27. 1. 92 leaving behind his widow and sons. They were substituted and at present one John James is living in the property in dispute and no other heir of the respondent is living there. It is alleged by the petitioners that when asked to vacate the premise on the expiry of the period of five years, the respondents did not vacate the premise in dispute, resulting in the petitioners filing the petition for possession on 14. 7. 198. seeking eviction of the respondents and recovery of the possession of the premises it dispute.

( 4 ) THE respondents opposed the said execution on the grounds that the permissicious under section 21 of the Act was illegal and the petitioners committed a fraud by con cealing material facts and intentions to let out the property for a limited period only The respondents controverted the contentions raised by the petitioners in the execution petition. The respondent contended that he had been living in the property since 1973 when he was given part of the ground floor by one Mr. Augustin occupying tin ground floor at the rate of Rs. 500. 00 p. m. and left for Stales in 1973 and the possession of the remaining two rooms on the ground floor was with the brother of Mr. Augustin who is stated to have vacated and gave possession to the elder brother of the petitioners and General Attorney of both the petitioners. It is further contended by the respondents that some time in 1978 the petitioner No. l along with his brother Chel Ram offered the respondent Major James to let out the property at the rate of 800/ p. m. or else to vacate the property. In these circumstances, it is alleged that the petitioners thought fit to let out the properly through court. In reply to the objections, the petitioners have denied the allegations of facts and have contended that there was need to disclose the reasons except that the property was not required for a particular period, It is further alleged by the petitioners that their children have studied in India and they will be settled in Delhi only, though they themselves are residing in Thailand.

( 5 ) I have heard the counsel for the petitioner at length. There was no appearance for the respondent despite the case remaining on board as part heard on a number of days. This appears to be yet another case coming to light where the parties enter into a tenancy for a limited term after obtaining permission of Rent Controller under Section 21 of the Act and not vacating the premises on the expiry of s