( 1 ) SHRI Inder Sain Minocha and his son, Harish Chandra Minocha, are owners of house No. B-l68, Gujranwala Town, Delhi. Apparently, on or about April 2, 1973 they entered into an agreement with the appellant, Shri Vijay Kumar Bajaj, for creating a limited tenancy in his favour in respect of a portion on the second floor of that house consisting of one Barsati, one latrine-cum-bath, open verandab, after obtaining the necessary permission from the Rent Controller. In pursuance of this arrangement an application under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the Act ) for permission to create a limited tenancy for a period of two years was made before the Controller. The Additional Controller granted the permission vide his order dated April 2, 1973. On March 31,1975, respondent No. 1, Inder Span Minocha, made a second application under Section 21 of thact for permission to create limited tenancy for a further period of two years with effect from April 2, 1975. It was averred in the application that the premises sought to be let out were residential premises and that the period of previous agreement was to expire on April 1, 1975 but the landlord still did not need the said premises for another period of two years. After recording the statements of the parties and being satisfied that the landlords did not require the premises for a further period of two years, the Additional Controller vide order dated April 1, 1975 granted the permission to create a limited tenancy as prayed.

( 2 ) ON April 11, 1977 the landlords filed an execution application for putting them in possession of the premises on the allegations that the period of limited tenancy had since expired. The tenant contested the application on the ground that the second limited tenancy effective from April 2, 1975 was invalid, null and void and inoperative for the reasons (a) the tenant was already in possession of the premises in suit on the date of the application and the grant of the permission i. e. April 1, 1975 and the permission was thus illegal ; (b) the act of obtaining the permission for creating limited tenancy was a fraud upon the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act inasmuch as the landlords did not assign any cause whatsoever as to why the premises were not required by then and why the same were required subsequently; and (c) both the parties at the time of the agreement knew that the agreement was not lawful and was void.

( 3 ) SHRI G. P. Thareja. Additional Controller, Delhi, vide his order dated May 26,1979 dismissed the objections and directed the tenant to put the respondents into vacant possession of the premises in dispute. The tenant approached the Rent Control Tribunal in appeal. Before the Rent Control Tribunal it was urged (a) that the application was not maintainable as it was not in accordance with the rules, (b) the application could not be filed directly before the Additional Rent Controller, (c) the tenant was already in possession of the property by virtue of limited tenancy created earlier and no fresh limited tenancy could be created and (d) a fraud had been practised on the Court. Some grievance was also made against the order of the Court refusing opportunity to the appellant-tenant to file a reply to the application moved by the landlords for additional evidence before allowing the same. None of these submissions found favour with the Rent Control Tribunal, who dismissed the appeal vide his order dated February 29,1980.

( 4 ) FEELING aggrieved, the tenant filed a second appeal. This appeal came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge. Three questions were raised before our learned brother, namely, (1) the landlord did not disclose reasons for not requiring the premises in question for a fixed period of two years either in his application or in the statement before the Controller and, therefore, the permission was invalid ; (2) after obtaining the permission dated April 1, 1975 from the Controller, t