A person whose limited tenancy has expired continues to be a tenant for the purposes of the Delhi Rent Control Act until an order for recovery of possession is passed against them.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against judgment dated 21/09/1992 of Rent Control Tribunal by which he had dismissed theappeal brought by the appellant against order dated 2/07/1992 of anadditional Rent Controller by which the objection petition filed by theappellant in proceedings under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act hadbeen dismissed.

( 2 ) FACTS, in brief, are that Late Harminder Singh Anand had let outthe premises in question to M/s. Hindustan Sugar Mills Limited vide alease Deed dated April 25, 1977. The premises were used by Sri Chandmehta, predecessor in interest of the appellant. The said company is statedto have surrendered the tenancy to the landlord on 25/03/1978. However, Sri Chand Mehta continued in the premises and on 23/05/1978,sri Chand Mehta and the landlord, Harminder Singh approached theadditional Controller for creating a limited tenancy under Section 21 witheffect from 1/06/1978 for a period of five years. The Additional Controller granted the permission for creating such limited tenancy for a periodof five years.

( 3 ) ON the expiry of the said period of five years, Harminder Singh,landlord had filed a petition for obtaining an order for being placed inpossession of the premises in question under Section 21 of the Act. Theobjections were filed by Sri Chand Mehta on 8/03/1975. Variouspleas were taken in resisting the said petition of the landlord but now twopleas have been raised before me in support of the said objections by learnedcounsel for the appellant. Firstly, that the order granting the permissionfor creating the limited tenancy was vitiated because of jurisdictional error,inasmuch as Sri Chand Mehta. was already in possession of the premises as atenant and thus the premises were not available for creating any limitedtenancy under Section 21 of the Act. The other plea urged before me is thatduring the pendency of the proceedings under Section 21 of the Act, therespondents, the heirs of the original landlord, had instituted an eviction caseagainst the appellants under Section 14-D which has the effect of wiping onthe proceedings under Section 21 of the Act inasmuch as the landlord hasnow treated the appellants as ordinary tenants for getting their eviction ourthe ground of eviction, if any, available under Section 14 of the Delhi Rentcontrol Act and thus, the proceedings under Section 21 of the Act should bedeemed to be terminated.

( 4 ) BOTH, the original landlord and the tenant, had died during thependency of the proceedings.

( 5 ) NOW coming to the first point, it is evident that the objectionshad been filed in the proceedings under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Controlact after the expiry of the period of limited tenancy created under the saidact. The learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the ratiolaid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Shrisht Dhawan v. M/s. Shaw Brothers, 1992 Rajdhani Law Reporter (SC) 97. After makingreference to various judgments earlier delivered by the Supreme Court withregard to the scope of the objections which could be raised in proceedingsunder Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, in the main judgmentdelivered by R. M. Sahai, J. , the principles which had been culled out havebeen reproduced as follows :-

" (1) Permission granted u/sec. 21 of the Act can beassailedby the tenant only if it can be established that it was vitiated byfraud or jurisdictional error which in context of Section 21 is nothing else except fraud and collusion; (2) Fraud or collusion mustrelate to the date when permission was granted; (3) Permissioncarries a presumption of correctness which can be permitted to bechallenged not only by raising objection but proving it prima facie,to the satisfication of Controller before landlord is called upon tofile reply or enter into evidence; (4) No fishing or roving inquiryshould be permitted at the stage of execution; (5) A permission doesnot suffer from any of these errors merely because no reason wasdisc