Misrepresentation in short-term tenancy permission under rent control law defeats enforcement of landlord's recovery claim.

Permission under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act is valid only for genuine short-term letting where the landlord does not need the premises during the agreed period and bona fide expects to recover possession on expiry. On the facts, the landlord's suppression of a recent tenancy, incorrect statements about the alleged mother's relationship and condition, and misdescription of the son's school class went to the basis of consent and showed misrepresentation rather than a bona fide limited arrangement. Prior tenant inaction did not validate the transaction or bar later challenge. The permission was therefore not enforceable for recovery of possession.

---

---

Issues: Whether permission granted under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 could be treated as invalid and eviction refused when the landlord had obtained the permission on wrong statements and material suppression.

Analysis: Section 21 permits short-term letting only where the landlord does not require the premises for the relevant period and bona fide anticipates the need to recover possession on expiry. The material placed showed that the landlord had suppressed the recent tenancy of the premises, made an incorrect statement regarding the relationship and condition of the person described as her mother, and misstated the son's class in school. These half-truths went to the very basis of the permission and indicated that the arrangement was not genuinely entered into for the limited purpose contemplated by Section 21. Any initial inaction or acquiescence by the tenant did not validate a transaction that was obtained by misrepresentation or operate as a bar to challenge it later.

Conclusion: The permission under Section 21 was not entitled to be acted upon by the landlord, and the application for recovery of possession failed. The finding was in favour of the appellants.

---