( 1 ) THE appellant O. Bahree, who is the owner of property bearing No. 1/4, E. P. Railway Co-opeative House Building Society, Greater Kailash Enclave I, New Delhi, let out the same to the respondent through his attorney, Shri I. C. Bahree, after obtaining permission of the Rent Controller, Delhi under section 21 of the Act, for a limited period of three years effective from 27. 10. 1978. On the expiry of the aforesaid period, he made an application through the aforesaid attorney. Subsequently on objections by the tenant, inter alia, that the attorney could not seek possession of the property, he got his name substituted.

( 2 ) THIS application styled as an execution application was moved on 5. 1. 1982, when the tenant besides filing reply, also look up objections to the effect that the permission of the Rent Contrloller was obtained by fraudulent mis-representation that premises were available for letting for three years, for the reason that the owner was expected to retire thereafter, and that, in fact, the said owner was hardly of the age of 50, and no where near the age of superannuation, and that the pernmission granted on that assumption stood vitiated. The tenant also contended that, in fact, the tenancy had already been created with effect from 15. 10. 1978, and for that reason also, the provisions of section 21 of the Act were not available to the landlord, as the premises stood already let out, and the permission obtained on the ground that the premises were available for letting, was a nullity. It was further pleaded that, in any case, the said limied tenancy stands superseded by subsequent agreeemnt when the owner Shri O. Bahree himself came to Delhi before the expiry of the limited tenancy, namely, on 12. 10. 1981, and entered into a fresh agreement with the tenant by agreeing to let the tenant continue on increase of rent, and that rent was accordingly increased from Rs. 1600. 00 p. m. to Rs. 1800. 00 p. m. , and assuch the orginal order of grant of limited tenancy could not be utilised.

( 3 ) THE appellant as owner/landlord controverted all these allegations, and pleaded that there was no fraudulent misrepresentation by his attorney, and that what be meant was that since the appellant was employed in a company at Calcutta, which was in a very shaky position at the time, and the appellant wanted to take voluntary retirement, which he could seek at any time, and in that sense, the , attorney bad stated that the appellant would need the premises on his retirement, after the said period. It was denied that. the tenancy bad been created with effect from 15. 10. 1978, The explanation was that the agreement was subject to the understanding that the tenancy would be for a limited period tor which an application was to be made to the Rent Controller, and the lease agreement to be executed, only after permission bad been granted, and that, as a matter of fact, an application was moved under section 21 on 19. 10. 1978, which was taken up for consideration on 23. 10. 78 when the Rent Controller passed the order granting permission for creation of a tenancy with effect from the said date, and that, in fact, a lease deed was executed on 27. 10. 78, which was duly registered, under which the tenancy commenced from 27. 10. 78, namely, the dale of execution of the lease deed. It was contended that the possession of the premises was handed over to the tenant only on 24. 10. 78, after orders of the court.

( 4 ) THE allegation about creation of fresh tenancy was also controverted in its entirety. The plea taken was that when the owner came to Delhi, and met the tenant on 12. 10. 81, the latter requested that they be allowed to continue for some time, on the plea that they were constructing a house of their own, and required few months to complete the construction and shift to their own house. It was pleaded that the owner acceded to request of the tenant, to continue for a year or so on the specific condition and