Sultan Singh, J.
1. This second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 17th July, 1982 confirming the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 29th January, 1982 dismissing the appellant's application for recovery of possession under Section 21 of the Act. Briefly the facts are that on 3rd January, 1977 the appellant and the respondent jointly filed an application under Section 21 of the Act seeking permission for letting second floor of the premises at plot No. R-810, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi by the appellant to the respondent for a fixed period of two years on a monthly rent of Rs. 1000/-. It has been alleged in this application that the appellant, owner-landlord does not require the second floor premises for a period of two years.
2. The landlord made his statement before the Additional Controller as follows on 4th January, 1977 :--
'I am the owner of the premises. I want to let out and the respondent wants to take the premises shown in plan Ex. A1 being house No. R-810, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi for a period of 2 years from the date of letting according to law for residence proposed agreement is Ex. A2.'
The tenant made the following statement :--
'I will be taking the premises shown in plan Ex. A1 for a period of 2 years from the date of letting according to law for residence. I will vacate the premises after the expiry of 2 years without objection. Petitioner statement is correct. Proposed agreement is Ex. A2.'
3. The Additional Controller on 4th January, 1977, passed the following order :--
'In view of the statement of the parties I am satisfied that petitioner wants to let out and the respondent wants to take the premises Shown in plan Ex. A1 being house No. R-810, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi for a period of two years from the date of letting according to law for residence and the petitioner will require the premises after 2 years for himself. I permit the petitioner to let out this premises to the respondent for a period of 2 years from the date of letting according to law for residence. The respondent shall vacate the premises after the expiry of 2 years. If he fails, the petitioner can apply for possession within 6 months after the expiry of 2 years. File be consigned.'
The appellant-landlord after the spiry of two years filed an application for obtaining possession. The respondent filed objections dated 21st September, 1979. The respondent has alleged that the permission granted under Section 21 of the Act was not in accordance with law, that the appellant has been letting out various portions of the suit property after getting the same vacated at higher rent, that the appellant never disclosed why he would be requiring the premises after the expiry of two years. He has further state that the ground floor was vacated in February 1980 and then it was again let out to Dr Arora, that the first floor was also let to Dr. (Mrs.) Kuljit Thakur for a fixed period under Section 21 of the Act and execution proceedings whereof are pending before the Additional Controller. As regards second floor he has alleged that prior to his occupation, the second floor was under the tenancy of Mr. K.S. Bajpai. He has further stated that the permission was a fraud upon the court, and he was forced to submit to the conditions suggested by the appellant, that the permission was obtained fraudulently and by misrepresentation of facts, that the appellant does not require the premises for himself and members of his family, that his family consists of himself and his wife. The appellant denied the allegations of the respondent.
4. The Additional Controller after recording evidence held that the appellant never disclosed why the premises were available only for a specified period for letting. The Rent Control Tribunal confirmed the order of the Additional Controller holding that no reasons were given by the appellant as to why he would require the premises after the expiry of two years.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that when the premises were let under Section 21 of the Act the appellant and the respondent filed a joint application stating that the appellant did not require the second floor for a period of two years and that it was let for residence. He submits that the two conditions of Section 21 of the Act were complied with and thereforee, the permission was in accordance with law.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that the appellant made a statement as reproduced above wherein he has not disclosed as to why he did not require the premises for residence for the limited period of two years. His submission is that the appellant intentionally with held the information as he has always been in possession and occupation of suitable accommodation for his residence and order dated 4th January, 1977 granting permission was a mindless order.
7. Front the evidence it is clear that the family of the respondent consists of himself, his wife and an adopted son aged three years. The respondent has been in occupation and possession of four rooms, at 5/6, Windsor Mansion, Janpath Lane, New Delhi. The appellant alleges that those premises were let to him for residence and business. In his application for obtaining possession under Section 21 of the Act it was not disclosed why he did not require the premises for a period of two years. In fact the appellant neither in his application under Section 21 of the Act nor in his statement dated 4th January, 1977 disclosed the reasons for not requiring the premises by him during two years from 4th January, 1977. In his application for recovery of possession or statement as a witness also he did not state a single word as to why the premises were not required by him during the period of two years for which permission under Section 21 of the Act was obtained by him.
8. The ground floor of the suit property under the tenancy of NewLight Publisher was vacated in February 1980 and it was re-let to Dr. Arora,The first floor was let out to Dr. (Mrs.) Kuljit Thakur for three years witheffect from 8th October, 1975 under Section 21 of the Act and proceedings forobtaining possession thereof are pending. The second floor premises werepreviously under the tenancy of Indian Airlines and its officer Mr. K.S. Bajpaiwas residing. On 4th January, 1977 the second floor was let to the respondent after obtaining the said permission. The accommodation on the secondfloor consists of three bed rooms, drawing dining, kitchen, bath etc. Similaraccommodation exists on the first floor of the suit house. The family of therespondent consists of himself, his wife and an adopted son aged three years,He is in occupation of rented accommodation at Janpath for residence andbusiness. The appellant is not supposed to require both the first floor and thesecond floor for his residence specially when his family consists of himself, hiswife and one adopted son aged three years. The fixed term tenancy for firstfloor expired on 7th October, 1978. If he had required the premises for hisresidence he would not have let the second floor for a period of two yearsfrom 4th January, 1977. In any case it is not reasonable to hold that hewould require both the first floor and the second floor for his residence.From the record it is clear that the appellant-landlord never disclosed thereason for his not requiring the second floor premises during the fixed periodof two years. Merely saying that a landlord does not require the premisesfor a particular period is not sufficient to hold that the permission granted bythe Controller was in accordance with law. In Vijay Kumar v. Inder Saidetc. 1982 RLR 1 the Divison Bench has held that it is notnecessary to give reasons for not requiring the premises by a landlord for aparticular period in his application under Section 21 of the Act or in hisstatement before the Controller prior to the grant of the permission. It hasbeen held that the landlord or the tenant may be able to show that cogentreasons did exist as to why the landlord did not require the whole or part ofthe premises for the specified period. It has also been held that such reasonsmay be within the knowledge of the parties. In the instant case reasons fornot requiring the second floor premises for the specified period of two yearshave never been disclosed at any state up to this day. From the facts it isclear that appellant-landlord was in a position to let out the premises for anunspecified period. In other words it would mean that the provisions ofSection 21 of the Act were not applicable. The application under Section 21of the Act seeking permission for creation of limited tenancy was no doubtsigned by the appellant as well as by the respondent but it is immaterial.In S.B. Noronah v. Prem Kumair Khanna : 1SCR281 , it has beenobserved as under :
'When an application under Section 21 is filed by the landlord and/or tenant, the controller must satisfy himself by such inquiry as he may make, about the compulsive requirements of that provision. If he makes a mindless order, the Court, when challenged at the time of execution, will go into the question as to whether the, twin conditions for sanction have really been fulfillled. Of course, there will be a presumption in favor of the sanction being regular, but it will still be open to a party to make out his case that in fact and in truth the conditions which make for a valid sanction were not present'.
The order granting permission dated 4th January, 1977 is a mindless order. The Additional Controller did not satisfy himself why the premises were not required by the appellant landlord only for two years. At the time when application for obtaining possession was made the tenant raised objections. Parties led evidence but still reasons for not requiring the premises during the said limited period of two years had not been disclosed. Thus it means that the statement of the parties before the Additional Controller and the order passed by the Controller granting permission for letting for a fixed period of two years was a mindless order and a fraud on the Court. The fraud is obvious The appellant, his wife and adopted son have been in occupation of accommodation at Janpath. They are not being threatened to be dispossessed There is no such allegation. The appellant in his statement has stated that he requires first floor and second floor of the suit house for his residence. The has been in occupation of rented accommodation at Janpath. This is not sufficient reason. He ought to have disclosed at one stage or the other why he was not in need of the second floor premises for the period of two years from 4th January, 1977 or why he would require suit premises after the expiry of the fixed period for which permission was obtained. I am thereforee of the opinion that the order dated 4th January, 1977 granting permission was not in accordance with law and a mindless order. The appellant is thereforee not entitled to obtain possession of the premises in question under Section 21 of the Act.
9. Learned Counsel for the appellant refers to N.S. Parthasarthy and Ors. v. Padmini Devi and Anr. 22 (1982) D.L.T. 48 wherein the order for recovery of possession was passed without recording any evidence in support of the objections raised by the tenant. In that case the statement of the landlord was recorded. He had given cogent reasons for not requiring premises in question for the specified period. The facts of that case are different and as such not applicable to the instant case. There is no infirmity in the judgment of the Controller and the Tribunal. The appeal has no merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs.