Venkataramiah, J. - (1.) This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Delhi dated August 23. 1982 in S.A.O. No. 277 of 1982 dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants.
(2.) The respondent Smt. Ram Chambeli leased out the premises in question to the appellants under an order dated December 22, 1977 passed by the Additional Rent Controller in Suit No. M/798/ 77 under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (Act 59 of 1958) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). the relevant part of which reads thus: "Statement of Smt. Ram Chambeli w/o Sh. G. L. Gandhi I am the owner-landlord of premises No. 637. Double Storey, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi The entire premises comprising of two rooms, kitchen, bath, latrine shown in the plan Exhibit A1 is surplus with me for a limited period of 3 years which I want to let out to the respondent for residential purposes for the said period at rupees 425 p.m. which is mentioned in Mark B with effect from the date of permission. I have never let out the portion to anybody earlier to it. My son and my mother were living in the said premises. My mother has not been feeling well. My son is studying in 9th class. After about three years my mother will be alright and my son will grow up and for them I shall require the premises after three years. RO and AC ARC Statement of Shri V. S. Rahi, son of Sh. Thakur Gopal Singh. 45 years teacher and Smt. Santosh Rahi w/o Shri V. S. Rahi. aged 45 years teacher, resident of 33/52. Prabhat Road, Karol Bangh. New Delhi. We want the premises for three years for the residential purposes from the date of permission. We are not in possession of the premises nor were we tenants in it. RO and AC ARC ORDER This order will dispose of application under Section 21 DRC Act filed by Smt. Ram Chambeli applicant seeking permission to let out first floor of her premises No. 637. Double Storey. New Rajinder Nagar. New Delhi. It is stated that the first floor of the said premises comprising of two living rooms, kitchen. bath and laterine detailed in plan exhibit A-1 is surplus with her for a limited period of three years and she will require it after the said period of three years. The petitioner and respondent have made statement on oath in this connection. In view of the statement of the parties. permission u/s 21 of DRC Act is granted to Smt. Ram Chambeli, wife of Shri G. L. Gandhi applicant to let out first floor of her premises No. 637, Double Storey. New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi to Shri V. S. Rahi and Smt Santosh Rahi respondents for residential purposes for the said period of three years with effect from the date of the order. J. D. Kapoor. Add. Rent Controller."
(3.) On the expiry of the period of three years mentioned in the above order the respondent filed an application before the Additional Rent Controller for possession of the premises. The appellants filed objections to the said application stating that the respondent was comfortably living with her husband and son in the ground floor of the building, that she was not in need of the first floor of the building which had been leased out in their favour:that the statement that her mother was living with her was not true:that her son was studying in the 7th class in 1977 and not in the 9th class as stated by her before the Rent Controller in 1977 and that the Rent Controller had permitted the leasing out of the building under Section 21 of the Act without applying his mind. It was further pleaded that the application had been filed with a view to extracting higher rent. The appellants also stated that the statement of the respondent that she had not leased out the building earlier to anybody else was not true. After going through the affidavits filed by the parties in support of their cases the Additional Rent Controller held that the respondent had obtained the permission under Section 21 of the Act by making wrong statements and accordingly revoked the said permission. consequently the appellants could not be evicted under that section. Aggrieved by the order of the Additional Rent Controller the respondent filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and directed the eviction of the appellants. The Tribunal observed that when the Controller had been informed by the respondent right at the time when the permission was granted under Section 21 of the Act that the property was not required by her for a period of three years but would be needed after that period for the use of her son and her mother who was unwell at that time, there was no ground to hold that the transaction was not genuine. The second appeal filed by the appellants against the order of the Tribunal was dismissed by the High Court. This appeal by special leave is filed against the judgment of the High Court.;