R.N. Aggarwal, J.
(1) This second appeal against the order of Rent Control Tribunal has arisen in the following circumstances.
(2) Mrs. Sharda Ajmani is the owner of the premises described as House No. H-34 Green Park Extension, New Delhi on 12th May 1977 the owner let out the front portion of the said premises to M/s. Hirndoot' Fabrics for a limited period of three years. On tl.e expiry of the lease period of three years Smt. Ajmani filed an application under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act for vacant possession of the demised premises.
(3) The tenant filed a reply raising number of objection. The main objection was that in the application for obtaining permission from the Controller for letting out the demised premises for a limited period no reason was given why the landlady did not require the premises for the limited period of three years. The tenant pleaded that the landlady was living permanent- ly along with her husband at home to which place he had been transferred recently and that prior to that the husband of the landlady was posted at Australia. It was contended that the above facts show that the landlady had no intention whatsoever to come back to India and live in the premises in dispute. The tenant further pleaded that the above facts would further show that the statements made by the parties before the Rent Controller on 12th May 1977 in the application under Section 21 for obtaining permission of the Controller were not correct and were obtained from the tenant under pressure and compulsion since the tenant was in dire need of the accommodation.
(4) The landlady in reply to paras 8 and 9 of the objection petition stated that her ' husband is presently posted as an Ambassador to Italy and that for sometime she has to live with her husband in Rome and that for sometime she has to be in Delhi for the purpose of arranging the marriage of her daughter aged 21 years and also to look after her son who joined ser- vice in East India Hostels Ltd., at Delhi and was staying in Delhi. She fur- ther denied that the statements made by the parties on 12th May 1977 were null and void or that they were made with a view to harass the tenant.
(5) The tenant in the replication reiterated the allegations made in 8 and 9 of the objection petition.
(6) On 31st March 1982 the tenant filed an application for permission to amend the objection petition. The tenant alleged that there was a fresh lease. The said application was dismissed by the Additional Rent Controller on 30th October 1982. The appeal against the said order was dismissed by the Tribunal on 26th November 1982.
(7) On 28th January 1983 the tenant filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure alleging that the order under Section 21 of the Rent Control Act to let out the premises was made in favor of Shri Navin Chhibber and that there was no order granting permission to let out the premises to the judgment-debtor and, thereforee the order dated 12th May 1977 could not be executed against the judgment-debtor and consequently prayed that the execution petition be rejected.
(8) On 13th May 1983 the Additional Rent Controller rejected the application under Order 6 Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code, as well as the objection as not maintainable and ordered for the issuance of warrant of possession.
(9) Against the above order the tenant went in the appeal to the Rent Control Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the appeal on 12th December 1983. One of the contentions urged before the Tribunal was that in the application under Section 21 of the Rent Control Act for permission to let out the premises no reasons were given as to why the landlady did not re- quire the premises for that limited period and, thereforee, the permission is bad. This contention was rejected by the tribunal on the ground that no such objections was taken in the objection petition and the couit cannot travel beyond the pleadings.
(10) As I read paras 8 and 9 of the objection petition I am of the view that the tenant had clearly stated in paras 8 and 9 that the statement of the landlady before the Rent Controller in the application under Section 21 that she did not need the premises temporarily for a period of three years and thereafter she would require the premises for her own living was not correct. The reason given by the tenant was that the husband of landlady was posted at Rome and she was living permanently along with .her husband and prior to the posting at Rome the husband .of the landlady was posted in Australia and the landlady lived with her husband in Australia. The thrust of the objections in paras 8 and 9 is that the permission obtained from the court for letting out the premises for a limited period was a fraud on the provisions of the Rent Control Act. It is true that the tenant has not in so many words taken the said plea in the objection petition but a reading of paras 8 and 9 leave no doubt that this was the case pleased by the tenant.
(11) The landlady in reply stated that since her husband was posted as an Ambassador at Rome sometime she lived with her husband and she had to live for some time in Delhi for the purpose of arranging the marriage of her daughter and also for looking of after her son, who joined service in East India Hostels, Ltd. It is clear from the above statement that the landlady had to be in Delhi in March 1981 (the date of the filing of the reply to the objection petition) temporarily to make arrangements for the marriage of her daughter. Here it would be pertinent to refer to another allegations of the tenant. The tenant pleaded that the remaining portion of premises No. H-34 Green Park, was vacant and the landlady had let out the same to M/s. Loom scraft at a rent of Rs. 2500.00 per month recently and that would show the malafides in the claim of the landlady. The landlady in the reply admitted to have let out the remaining portion of house No. H-34 to M/s. Loom scraft at the rate of Rs. 2500.00 per month with effect from 1st December 1979. The landlady pleaded that since she did not require the back portion of House No. 34 at the time when it fell vacant and also because it was not suitable for her residence she had let out the same.
(12) On the pleadings the important question that arises for determination is whether there was special reason for the landlady on 12th May 1977 to let out the property for a limited period. The learned Additional Rent Controller without giving any opportunity to the parties to prove whether there was or there was not special reason for the landlady to let out the premises for a limited period dismissed the objection as not maintainable. In the circumstances of this I am of the view that the Additional Rent Con- troller was not justified in directing the eviction of the tenant from the premises in question without holding an enquiry into the objections noticed by me earlier. See S.K. Khosla v. Mrs. Baijit K. Sial 1984 Drj 148.(6) Also in Nihal Singh v. Prem Parkash 1983 DRJ 23. (5) Mr. Justice Sultan Singh held:
'IF in an application for permission under Section 21 landlord does not disclose as to why he does not require premises for specified period, then after the expiry of period, when he applies for pos- session, tenant may show that landlord did not require premises for an unspecified period and by omitting to give reasons for non-requirement (if any within his special knowledge,) he was guilty of fraud.'
Mr. Lala Ram Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent contended that Shri Ajmani, the husband of the landlady has now been transferred back to Delhi and there could be not doubt, now that the landlady required the premises for her personal occupation and the court can take notice of the change in the circumstances Shri Gupta referred to VinodBediv. Maha Prabhu P. Singha' flea and anothers 1983 (2) AIRCJ 244. I have carefully gone through the cited authority and, in my view, it is distinguishable on facts. In the cited case the tenancy was created for a period of two years with effect from 5th July 1978. The landlady who was a Lt. Colonel the army was transferred to Delhi on 3rd March 1980 and on the date the lease period of two years had expired the landlord was posted in Delhi and was staying in the Mess. The said authority would have no application. The present case would not have to be decided on the facts pleaded in 1980. In any case, it will be for the landlady to decided if she wants to move an application for amendment of the reply filed by her to the objection petition. Mr. Gupta also referred to N. S. Parthasarty etc. v. Padmini Devi 1982 (3) Drj 358. I have carefully gone through the said authority and, in my view it has no application to the case in hand.
(13) I allow the appeal, set aside the order of the Rent Control Tribunal and the order of the Additional Rent Controller and send the case back to the Additional Rent Controller for proceedings further in accordance with Jaw. The remand is limited to the question whether there was or there was not special reason for letting out the demised premises for the limited period. The parties shall appear before the Additional Rent Controller concerned on 27th September 1984. The Additional Rent Controller shall fix the date for the evidence of the tenant and one date for the evidence of the landlady. The parties shall be responsible for the production of their evidence. However, they can take' the assistance of the court in the summoning of the witnesses. The Additional Rent Controller shall decide the case within three months from the date of appearance of the parties before him. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
(14) The records be sent back to the court concerned and it should reach the court concerned well before 26th September 1984.