( 1 ) THIS is a petition filed by the land- lords/petitioners against the order dated 2. 9. 94 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 Rent 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 granted 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 been staying at Thailand for the last few years. The elder brother of the petitioners, who is otherwise attorney of the petitioners, had been living in the said house and on account 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 petitioners that the respondent approached. the petitioners for letting out the property to him for a period of five years under the provisions of Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Accordingly, permission under section 21 of the said Act was granted for a period of five years which was valid upto 2nd May, 1983. It is alleged by the petitioners that when asked to vacate the premises on the expiry of the period of five years, the respondent did not vacate the premises in dispute, resulting in the petitioners filing the petition for possession on 14. 7. 1983 seeking eviction of the respondent and recovery of the possession of the premises in dispute.

( 4 ) INSTEAD of vacating the premises situated on the first floor of C-204/a, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi, the respondent opposed the said execution and filed the objections on the grounds that the permission under section 21 of the Act was illegal and the petitioners committed a fraud by concealing material facts and intentions to let out the property for a limited period only. The respondent controverted the contentions raised by the petitioners in the execution petition. The respondent contended that he had been living in the property since 1970 alongwith his family and has been paying rent to the petitioners by means of cheque, cash through Mr. Chela Ram, brother of petitioner No. 1 and Attorney of petitioner No. 2. The respondent further contended that the petitioners threatened the resondent that they will forcibly evict him and throw him on the road and in these compelling circumstances, the respondent agreed to have the property on rent under the provisions of Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. He has further contended that since he never vacated the property, the provisions of Section 21 of the Act were not attracted. The respondent has further alleged that since the petitioners are residing in Thailand, they do not require the suit property. In reply to the objections, the petitioners have denied the allegations of facts and have contended that there was no 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 such term. The tenant after enjoying full terms of lease without any protest or demur chose to file objections only after the expiry of the term of lease/tenancy on the landlord moving t