https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166990 The SC allowed the landlady's appeal for vacant possession under Section 21. The tenant objected claiming fraudulent conduct, alleging the landlady knew premises were available for indefinite letting and had sufficient accommodation. The Controller and Tribunal erroneously placed burden on landlady to prove permission was genuine, rather than requiring tenant to establish fraud. The SC held that letting under Section 21 has no restrictions regarding landlord's existing accommodation. Permission validity must be judged at grant date, not by subsequent events or landlord's failure to occupy immediately. The authorities misapplied law by entertaining tenant's resistance and misconstruing Section 21 provisions. The SC set aside lower court orders. en-us Fri, 13 Dec 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Jun 2025 17:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166990 The SC allowed the landlady's appeal for vacant possession under Section 21. The tenant objected claiming fraudulent conduct, alleging the landlady knew premises were available for indefinite letting and had sufficient accommodation. The Controller and Tribunal erroneously placed burden on landlady to prove permission was genuine, rather than requiring tenant to establish fraud. The SC held that letting under Section 21 has no restrictions regarding landlord's existing accommodation. Permission validity must be judged at grant date, not by subsequent events or landlord's failure to occupy immediately. The authorities misapplied law by entertaining tenant's resistance and misconstruing Section 21 provisions. The SC set aside lower court orders. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 13 Dec 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166990