Section 21 rent permission stands unless fraud, collusion, or jurisdictional error is proved at the time of grant.

Permission under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act is valid only if the statutory preconditions existed when it was granted, and it can be impeached in execution only on proof of fraud, collusion, or a jurisdictional error going to the root of the Controller's power. Subsequent events, nondisclosure of reasons for short-term letting, or the landlord's later availability of other accommodation do not by themselves vitiate the sanction. On the facts, fraud or collusion was not proved, so the tenant's objection failed and eviction was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the permission granted under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 was vitiated by fraud or collusion, and whether the tenant could resist eviction on that basis in execution.

Analysis: Section 21 creates a limited and self-contained scheme for short-term residential letting, operative notwithstanding Section 14 and other laws, but only where its conditions are strictly satisfied. The material jurisdictional facts are the landlord's non-requirement of the premises for the stipulated period and the letting of the premises for residential use under a written agreement. The validity of the permission can be impeached only on proof of fraud, collusion, or a jurisdictional error of the kind that goes to the root of the Controller's power. Fraud must relate to the facts existing when permission was granted and must be established by the party alleging it; a presumption of legality attaches to the statutory order. Mere failure to disclose reasons for short-term letting, subsequent change of circumstances, or the landlord's later availability of alternative accommodation does not by itself amount to fraud. The authorities below erred in treating the landlord as bound to prove genuineness and in undertaking a roving enquiry at the execution stage on insufficient material.

Conclusion: The permission under Section 21 was not shown to be vitiated by fraud or collusion, and the tenant's objection to eviction failed. The impugned orders were set aside and the landlord's claim to vacant possession was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A permission under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 can be invalidated only by proof that, at the time of grant, it was procured by fraud or collusion or by a jurisdictional error going to the existence of the statutory conditions; subsequent events, nondisclosure of reasons, or a speculative enquiry into the landlord's later needs do not defeat the sanction.

---