https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185774 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. en-us Tue, 28 Nov 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Aug 2016 11:39:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185774 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 28 Nov 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185774