Limited tenancy permission cannot be collaterally attacked in execution absent inherent lack of jurisdiction.

A second appeal may raise a substantial question of law where the dispute turns on construction of a receipt and the application of legal principles to proved facts, rather than mere reappreciation of evidence. A limited tenancy permission under Section 21 cannot be attacked collaterally in execution on a plea of fraud or suppression unless there is inherent lack of jurisdiction; where the alleged defect depends on disputed jurisdictional facts, the tenant must challenge it promptly during the currency of the tenancy before the competent authority. The permission therefore remains operative for recovery of possession if not timely challenged.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court could interfere in second appeal on the footing that the receipt and surrounding facts showed creation of a tenancy notwithstanding the concurrent factual findings below; (ii) Whether a tenant can, after expiry of the limited tenancy, resist recovery of possession by a collateral plea that permission under Section 21 was obtained by fraud or suppression of material facts.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court could interfere in second appeal on the footing that the receipt and surrounding facts showed creation of a tenancy notwithstanding the concurrent factual findings below.

Analysis: A question arising from the construction of the receipt and the application of legal principles to proved facts was a question of law, and the court below had not merely reappreciated evidence on a pure issue of fact. The test of a substantial question of law depends on whether the issue directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties and is not already settled or is otherwise debatable.

Conclusion: The High Court was not shown to have acted outside the permissible scope of second appeal on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether a tenant can, after expiry of the limited tenancy, resist recovery of possession by a collateral plea that permission under Section 21 was obtained by fraud or suppression of material facts.

Analysis: Permission under Section 21 must be challenged during the currency of the limited tenancy as soon as the alleged vitiating facts come to light. The authorities requiring an immediate challenge reconcile the competing claims under the special procedure and do not permit a tenant to wait until execution proceedings and then invoke collateral attack. The doctrine of nullity applies only where there is inherent lack of jurisdiction, not merely where the existence of jurisdictional facts is disputed and requires adjudication on evidence.

Conclusion: A collateral challenge in execution was not available; the tenant had to seek timely adjudication before the Rent Controller.

Final Conclusion: The permission under Section 21 remained operative for purposes of recovery of possession, and the landlord's claim for delivery of possession was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: A permission granted under Section 21 cannot be treated as a nullity in collateral execution proceedings unless there is inherent lack of jurisdiction; where the alleged defect depends on disputed jurisdictional facts, the tenant must challenge the permission during the currency of the limited tenancy before the competent authority.

---