Thommen, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The scope of S. 211 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 has been considered by this Court in a number of decisions.2 The section embodies the legislative policy to devise a special mechanism to increase the supply of accommodation to meet the rising demands of a growing metropolis. It operates in limited circumstances; and, strictly within those bounds, and subject to the vigilant enquiry of the Controller before according his permission, the parties are once permitted to regulate their relationship in accordance with the section, totally governed by the terms of their contract. 1 Section 21 reads: "Recovery of possession in case of tenancies for limited period. -(1) Where a landlord does not require the whole or any part of any premises for a particular period, and the landlord, after obtaining the permission of the Controller in the prescribed manner, lets the whole of the premises or part thereof as a residence for such period as may be agreed to in writing between the landlord and the tenant and the tenant does not, on the expiry of the said period, vacate such premises, then, notwithstanding anything contained in S. 14 or in any other law, the Controller may, on the application made to him in this behalf by the landlord within such time as may be prescribed, place the landlord in vacant possession of the premises or part thereof by evicting the tenant and every other person who may be in occupation of such premises. (2) While making an order under subsection (1), the Controller may award to the landlord such damages for the use or occupation of the premises at such rates as he considers proper in the circumstances of the case for the period from the date of such order till the date of actual vacation by the tenant." 2 Shiv Chander Kapoor v. Amar Bose, (1990) 1 SCC 234 ; Inder Mohan Lal v. Ramesh Khanna, (1987) 4 SCC 1 ; Subhash Kumar Lata v. R.C. Chhiba, (1988) 4 SCC 709; V. S. Rahi v. Smt. Ram Chambeli, (1984) 1 SCC 612; J. R. Vohra v. India Export House Pvt. Ltd. ' (1985) 1 SCC 712; Yamuna Maloo v. Anand Swarup, (1990) 3 SCC 30 ; Pankaj Bhargava v. Mohinder Nath, AIR 1991 SC 1233; Smt. Dhanwanti v. D. D. Gupta, (1986) 3 SCC 1 ; S. B. Noronah v. Prem Kumari Khanna, (1980) 1 SCC 52; Pukhraj Jain v. Padma Kashyap, (1990) 2 SCC 431.
(3.) The section operates in terms thereof, notwithstanding any other law, unless the contract itself, or the permission of the Controller, is vitiated by fraud. Absent such vitiating circumstance, and once the Controller has accorded sanction, the parties to the contract are presumed to have entered into their relationship at arm's length and the law binds them to the terms of their agreement.;