( 1 ) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution really calls for understanding the true scope, extent and meaning of the judgment of the Supreme Court in S. B. Noronah v. Prem Kumari Khanna, XVI (1979) D. L. T. 116 (S. G.) wherein the Supreme Court has interpreted Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). It also, in the light of the said judgment, calls for understanding the scope of the Powers of the Rent Controller when application is filed before him for possession, after sanction granted under the said section for creating a tenancy for a limited period has expired.

( 2 ) THE petition itself is directed against a seemingly innocuous order of the learned Rent Controller dated 16-11-1981 which reads as under :

"in view of the Authority of A. I. R. 1980 Page 193, the allegation of the respondent requires trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the authority of 1981 (2) P. L. R. 103 but in this case alle- gations of fraud are there. Put up for evidence of the objector-respondent on 15-1-82. "

( 3 ) HOWEVER, before I discuss the scope of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court and the powers of the Rent Controller under Section 21 of the Act when an application is presented to it for possession, it is necessary recaptulate the facts of the present case.

( 4 ) THE petitioners before this Court are the landlords, namely, Shri N. S. Parthasarthy, Shri N. S. Padamanabhan and Miss Raji Gopalan (now Mrs. Raji Gopalan) all children of Dr. N. P. Seshadri, resident of A-20/1, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi.

( 5 ) THE contesting respondent is the tenant, Mrs. Padmini Devi, wife of Col. Sawai Bhawani Singh, MVG of Jaipur, who is residing at 119, Golf Links, the premises in dispute.

( 6 ) ON or about 10-7-1979, an application was filed by the petitioners before the Rent Controller, purporting to be under Section 21 of the Act for creating tenancy for a limited period of two years. It was stated in this application that "the petitioners do not require at present the premises consisting of ground floor and first floor and terrace with one room WC garage and servant quarters more fully described in the Plan attached and marked red excluding Barsati (one room) which the petitioners would like to keep for themselves for the use of their guests; that on the request of the respondent the petitioners have agreed to let out their aforesaid premises to the respondent for a limited period of two years subject to the grant of permission by the Rent Controller, Delhi for the residence of the respondent and her family members etc. that the agreed rate of rent of the aforesaid premises has been settled at Rs. 4000. 00 p. m. excluding electricity and water charges; that the respondent undertakes to vacate the premises after the expiry of period of two years as the same will be required by the petitioners for their own use and the use of members of the family dependent upon them" and therefore, it was prayed that necessary permission under Section 21 of the Act to create tenancy for a limited period of two years from the date of the order of the court for the residence of the respondent may be granted.

( 7 ) IT is pertinent to notice that this application, apart from being signed by the three petitioners, was filed through Shri H. S. Paul, Advocate, who also signed the same Along with this application, apart from the plan of the property sought to be let out, a proposed deed of lease was also filed. This application was assigned by the Controller to himself and the petitioners were directed to appear before him on 19-7-1979. When the application came up for hearing before the Rent Controller on 19-7-1979, the petitioners appeared in person and the respondent appeared through her attorney Shri P. S. Paul, In the joint statement of the petitioners, apart from noticing the accommodation which was proposed to be let out, it was stated that this accommodation is surplus with the pe