( 1 ) THE appellants in this second appeal are owners/landlords of property bearing No. 12, Friends Colony (West), New Delhi, who had initially let out these premises to the respondent M/s. Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited, (for short the Company ), for a period of five years four months by means of an application, filed before the Rent Controller, under section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, (for short the Act ), on 16. 8. 77. This application came up before the Additional Rent Controller on 17. 8. 77 when statements were recorded. The application had been made on behalf of three owners/landlords, who arc brothers, signed by two of them personally, and by their mother as duly constituted attorney of the third brother, namely, Suresh Puri. At the time statements were recorded, one of them, namely, Sunil Puri, appeared and reiterated on oath the averments that had been made in the application under section 21 of the Act, and expressly stated that premises were contemplated to be let out to the respondent company for a limited period of 64 months, as per terms and conditions contained in the draft lease deed, annexed to the application as A-2.

( 2 ) IT may be noted that in the application details were given as to why the premises were not required for this period of 64 months, by the three brothers for their residence, implying- thereby that these would be required by them on the expiry of the said period.

( 3 ) ON behalf of the respondent Company, Mr. Namo Narain, company secretary, appeared and accepted the terms set out in the application under section 21 of the Act, as correct. It was also signed by him on behalf of the company as Company Secretary, and he further stated explicitly that he had been authorised to make statement on behalf of the company by means of a letter of authority, which he filed as Ex. R-1.

( 4 ) PERMISSION was granted in terms of the application and the statements made by order dated 17. 8. 77, and the lease deed executed on 18. 8. 77, on the same terms as set out in the draft lease deed. The lease deed was duly registered subsequently on 29. 8. 77. This lease deed was signed on behalf of the Company by Mr. Namo Narain as Company Secretary, preamble whereof expressly stated that it was being executed between the owners/landlords on the one hand, as lessors, and the Company as a lessee, through Secretary of the Company, Mr. Namo Narain. Salient features of this lease deed, in so far these are relevant to the present appeal, were that term of the tenancy was agreed to be 64 months, effective from the date of grant of permission, and that the premises shall be used by the lessee for residential purposes only. There is also a reference in the preamble that the lease deed was pursuant to the order under section 21 of the Act.

( 5 ) IT appears that shortly before the expiry of the period of limited tenancy, the appellants, as owners/landlords, called upon the Company to hand over vacant possession of the premises on the due date, which fact is indicated from a reply dated 6. 12. 82 sent on behalf of the Company, through M/s. Khaitans and Partners, Advocates by registered post, proved, on record as Ex. DHW1/1. There is a clear reference in the subject title of this reply that it was being sent on behalf of the clients, (M/s. Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd.), namely, the respondent company, and it was also admitted that the letting was by means of permission under section 21 of the Act for a period of 5 years 4 months, but the contention advanced was that real intention was that the tenancy would be a general p=09 tenancy, and not circumscribed by any limit of the period for which it was to subsist, and that it was only because of the insistence of the appellants that the letting would be by means of an application under section 21, and on the assurance that this was by way of formality, and that in case rent was paid regularly, and there was no ot