Limited tenancy permission challenge confined to statutory jurisdictional facts; bona fide need outside section 21 cannot be re-opened.

A challenge to permission for a limited tenancy under section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act is confined to whether the statutory jurisdictional facts existed when permission was granted, namely that the landlord did not require the premises for the relevant period and that the letting was for residence under a written agreement. The Controller cannot reopen broader questions of bona fide need outside section 21. On the facts, the landlord's stated need based on the son's prospective marriage was not shown to be false or a pretence, and no prior notice to the tenant was required before recovery proceedings. The limited-tenancy permission was therefore upheld and possession restored to the landlord.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, when validity of permission granted for a limited tenancy is challenged, the enquiry under section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is confined to the existence of the statutory jurisdictional facts at the time of grant of permission. (ii) Whether the landlord's permission was invalid because the stated need based on the son's prospective marriage was false, and whether any prior notice was required before recovery of possession was sought.

Issue (i): Whether, when validity of permission granted for a limited tenancy is challenged, the enquiry under section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is confined to the existence of the statutory jurisdictional facts at the time of grant of permission.

Analysis: Section 21 is a self-contained exception to the normal protection against eviction under section 14. The only matters relevant to grant of permission are whether the landlord did not require the premises for a particular period and whether the premises were let as a residence under a written agreement. When the permission is later questioned, the Controller may examine only whether those jurisdictional facts existed at the time permission was granted. Broader enquiry into bona fide need, or other grounds falling outside section 21, is impermissible.

Conclusion: The enquiry is confined to the statutory jurisdictional facts and cannot be expanded to test bona fide need under section 14.

Issue (ii): Whether the landlord's permission was invalid because the stated need based on the son's prospective marriage was false, and whether any prior notice was required before recovery of possession was sought.

Analysis: The stated reason for the limited tenancy was not that the son would be married on the exact date of expiry, but that the premises would be needed after a reasonably foreseeable interval. The estimate of three years was not shown to be unreasonable or a pretence. The tenant also failed to establish any material showing absence of the statutory conditions or misuse of the provision. As to notice, no prior notice to the tenant before issuing recovery of possession is required under section 21, though the tenant may raise an objection and seek adjudication if he challenges validity of the permission.

Conclusion: The permission was valid, the objection based on the son's age failed, and no prior notice was necessary before recovery proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The limited-tenancy permission stood upheld, the tenant's objections failed, and possession was directed to be restored to the landlord with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: On a challenge to permission for a limited tenancy, the Controller may examine only whether the statutory conditions in section 21 existed when permission was granted; objections founded on matters outside those jurisdictional facts, including a general plea of bona fide need, are beyond the scope of that enquiry.

---