The objections filed by the tenant did not make out a case of fraud or collusion, and the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to entertain the objections and direct the tenant to produce evidence.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition filed by Sh. Jitender Kumar Jauhar, landlord, for quashing an order dated 18. 1. 85 whereby the learned Additional Controller, after noticing the objections which were filed in execution of an order dated 26. 4. 79 passed u/s 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 the Act held that the objections to the execution application u/s 21 of the Act cannot be decided without evidence and directed that the evidence of the objector be produced on 12. 4. 85.

( 2 ) THE petition itself has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India inter alia on the ground that the objections filed by the tenant did not make out fraud and/or collusion or any plea open in execution to the executability of the order within the test laid down by Krishna lyer, J. in S. B. Noronah Vs. Prem Kumari Khanna AIR 1980 S. C. 193. and as explained and law laid down by Tulzapurkar, J in J. R. Vohra Vs. M/s India Export House 1985 (1) RCJ. 368.

( 3 ) TO appreciate the submissions of learned counsel for the parties it is necessary to recaptulate the facts of the case. The landlord is occupying two bed rooms along with drawing-cum-dining room and kitchen on the front portion of the ground floor of his house No. S-B Housing Society, N. D. S. E. Par-I, New Delhi. On 25. 4. 79 he filed an application u/s 21 of the Act for letting out the back portion of the same floor consisting of two rooms, drawing-cum-dining, kitchen and bath @ Rs. 500. 00 P. M. for purely residential purposes for a fixed period of 5 years. It was inter alia stated in this a application that landlord does not require this portion for next 5 years and thereafter he will be requiring the same for the need of his growing up children. Along with this application the landlord filej a plan of the portion in his occupation as well as the plan relating to the portion which was sought to be let out u/s 21 of the Act. The landlord also filed a copy of the agreement which contains various terms on which he had proposed to let out the premises. This agreement stated that the letting was for a specific period of 5 years and was to be only for residential purposes at an agreed rent of Rs. 530. 00 p. m. This agreement also recited in clause (6) thereof that the tenant has agreed to take the said premises for residential purposes and shall not misuse the said premises for commercial purposes or for any other purposes other than for residential only. [in paras 4 and 5, Statements of parties and Court s Order is reproduced].

( 4 ) IT will be noticed from this order that the order was passed on the basis of the statements of the parties and it expressly recited the accommodation which has been let out and also the fact that it was being let out for a limited period of five years with effect from 28. 4. 79 for residential purposes.

( 5 ) FIVE years period expired on or about 26. 4. 84. It appears that before the period expired, the tedant took no steps to challenge the order dated 26. 4. 79 whereby the permission was granted to let the premises u/s 21 of the Act. I am saying so because a few days before the expiry of the period, the landlord intact filed a suit against the tenant for permanent injunction restraining him from mis-using the premises from residential purposes to a commercial purposes. This suit was filed on or about 23. 4. 84 which was preceded by two notices dated 22. 3. 84 and 7. 4. 84 requesting the tenant to stop the mis-user of the premises for commercial purposes. But since the tenant refused to change the user, the suit was filed.

( 6 ) ALONG with the suit the landlord applied for ad interim order to restrain the tenant from using the premises for commercial purposes. Both the trial court and the lower appellate court on appeal refused to grant temporary injunction in favour of the landlord and against the tenant. The landlord being dissatisfied came up to this court and Sultan Singh, J. by order dated 11. 1. 85 restrained the tenant from using the