( 1 ) THIS second appeal by the tenant is directed against the order dt. 28th August, 1980 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi whereby his appeal against the dismissal of his objections, was also dismissed.

( 2 ) THE respondent Shri Inder Mohan lal is the owner-landlord of the premises in dispute. He filed an application under section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (here-in-after called the Act") for permission to create a limited tenancy in favour of the appellant for a period of two years w. e. f. l5thjuly,1976. In the application it was stated that the respondent has agreed to let out to the appellant, for the first time, on terms and conditions set out in proposed lease deed for two years subject to the grant of permission by the Court. The proposed agreement of lease and copy of plan of the premises was filed along with the application. He also made a statement before the Additional Rent Controller to the following effect :--

"i do not require the premises for a period of two years from 15th July, 1976. The purpose of letting shall be residential only and the premises are shown in Ex. A. A limited tenancy under section 21 of the Act may be allowed to be created for the said period. "the appellant also made a statement whereby he accepted the statement of The respondent and stated that he had no objection if the limited tenancy for a period of two years was created.

( 3 ) ON the basis of the application and the statements made by the parties, the Additional Rent Controller passed the following order :-

"this is an application filed under section 21 of the Act for permission to create a limited tenancy for a period of two years from 15th July, 1976. The purpose of letting shall be residential only and the premises is shown in the site plan Ex. A. I. The proposed agreement is Ex. A. 2. From the perusal of the statements of the parties, I am satisfied that at present the petitioner does not require the premises. Therefore limited tenancy allowed to be created, for a period of two years from 15th July, 1976. "after the expiry of the period of two years it appears that the appellant did not vacate the premises and the respondent filed an application under section 21 of the Act alleging that the appellant had failed to deliver vacant possession of the premises after the expiry of the limited period of tenancy of two years and he needs the premises bona fide for himself and members of his family. It was prayed that the respondent should be put in possession of the property. The appellant filed his objections to the application for possession. It was stated in the objection petition that the tenancy under section 21 of the Act was invalid inasmuch as no writing was executing after the permission had been granted. It was further stated that the order passed under section 21 was a mindless order in as much as the respondent did not disclose as to how the demised premises were being dealt with before creating the said alleged tenancy and why the respondent did not require the demised premises for the alleged period of two years and as to why the same? would be required by him after the period of two years.

( 4 ) VIRES of Section 21 of the Act wefe also challenged. It was further pleaded that by a subsequent oral agreement the respondent had agreed to continue the tenancy in favour of the appellant on the same terms and conditions.

( 5 ) THE learned Additional Rent Controller dismissed the objections and came to the conclusion that Section 21 was d self contained provision and no separate writing was required and the oral agreement as alleged, was not substantiated. He further held that the tenancy having been created under Section 21 of the Act and the same having been accepted by the appellant there was no further requirement to prove as to why the premises were not required by the respondent for a limited period. The view of the Additional Rent Controller was obviously in accordance with the view ta