JUDGMENT H.C. Goel, J.
(1) Shri Shiv Shankar, Kapoor appellant, had leased out the second floor of his house No. 19/10. Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi, to Amar Bose respondent, for residential purpose for a limited period of three years after obtaining of the permission of the Rent Controller under the provisions of S .21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short 'the Act') on August 8,1980. The respondent-tenant did not vacate the premises at the expiry of the period of three years. On October 14, 1983 the landlord filed an application against the respondent-tenant praying for the delivery of possession of the demised premises by way of execution of the order passed, under S. 21 of the Act. The tenant filed objections against the same. It was alleged that the permission granted by the Rent Controller under S. 21 of the Act was illegal and invalid as the same was obtained by the landlord's concealment of material facts and playing a fraud on the Rent Controller and the Rent Controller had passed the order mechanically as there was no material before him by which he could have reached satisfaction that the landlord did not require the premises only for a limited period of three years. The case of the landlord as disclosed in the application for permission to let out the premises for the limited period of three years, as also in his statement which was accepted by the tenant was that the premises namely, the accommodation with the tenant on the second floor comprising of two bed rooms, a kitchen, bath and a lavatory let at a monthly rent of Rs. 800.00 besides electricity and water charges would be required for a son of the petitioner-landlord after three years when he would be getting married. The tenant in the objections filed by him gave the details of the family members of the landlord, as also the accommodation that has been in possession of the landlord on the ground floor, first floor and the second floor of the building bearing No. 19/10, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi. It was stated that the son of the landlord about whom it was stated that he would be married after three years and then the accommodation would be required for him, was only 16 years of age at the time of seeking permission for the limited tenancy for three years, that this fact was not brought to the notice of the Rent Controller at the time of seeking his permission under S. 21 of the Act and nor did the Rent Controller himself try to find out his age and that had the Rent Controller found out the age of the son of the landlord he would not have accorded the permission for the limited tenancy for three years as a boy could not be expected to be married at the age of 19 years or so, that being even otherwise illegal. It was contended that thus it was clear that the parties had colluded and the landlord had played a fraud on the court of the Rent Controller in obtaining the permission under S. 21 of the Act.
(2) The Rent Controller agreed with the tenant that it was open to a tenant to prove at the execution stage that the earlier order granting permission was a mindless order and the requirements of S. 21 had not been fulfillled. On the merits of the case also the Rent Controller accepted the contention of the tenant that it was a case of non-application of mind on the part of the Rent Controller in granting permission as there was no material before the Rent Controller on which he could have been satisfied that the landlord did not require the premises only for the limited period of three years and after which he required the same for self-occupation. The Rent Controller accepted the objections of the tenant and the execution application for the delivery of possession of the landlord was dismissed by his impugned order dated August 9, 1985. This order was affirmed on appeal by the Rent Control Tribunal vide his order dated October 14,1986.
(3) The landlord, Shiv Shankar, Kapoor, appellant, has preferred this appeal against the impugned order of the Rent Control Tribunal affirming the order of the Rent Controller.
(4) Mr. Ashoke Sen, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that whereas at the second stage i.e. at the execution stage a tenant has the right to show that the requirement of S. 21 of the Act for granting permission for a limited tenancy had not been fulfillled while passing the first order, there is a very heavy burden on the tenant for succeeding in the same. It is contended that in such a case the tenant has to show that the earlier order was passed by the Rent Controller wholly mechanically and without application of mind and that the requirement of S. 21 had not been fulfillled. It was submitted that the earlier order could not be said to be non est or bad or void order so as to be not given effect to only if the Rent Controller to whom the execution application is moved takes a view contrary to the one that was taken by the Rent Controller in passing the first order granting permission under S. 21 Mr. Sen went on to say that the case of the tenant was that one son was aged about 16 years or 17 years when permission for the limited tenancy was sought and that the landlord could reasonably think that his son would become of marriageable age after about three years or so and as some time is taken in negotiations for marriage, so, the landlord could reasonably require the premises i.e. the second floor of the house after a period of three years when his said son was to be nearing marriageable age and was likely to get married. According to Mr. Sen on the sworn statement of the landlord that his one son would become of marriageable age after three years and he (landlord) would then require the demised premises for occupation of his family, which was accepted by the tenant in his statement made to the Rent Controller, the Rent Controller could reasonably be satisfied about the same and the courts below were wrong in holding that the Rent Controller could not have reached such satisfaction and that the order granting permission was passed mechanically without application of mind. Mr. Sen referred me to a decision of this Court in the case of Shri Vijay Kumar Bajaj v. Shri Inder Sain Minocha and another, 2nd 1981 (ii) Delhi 733 (DB). I may straight way say that there does not seem to be any scope for argument on behalf of the landlord-appellant in the case, the legal position being undisputed and the facts speaking eloquently for themselves. As stated by me above the age of the son of the landlord-appellant at the time when the application under S. 21 of the Act was moved was admittedly 16 years. According to law the marriage of a male person cannot be solemnised prior to his reaching the age of 21 years. This is quite a well-known piece of legislation which has been prevalent in India for the last many years. It has not been alleged on behalf of the landlord-appellant that he was not aware of it. Nothing has been brought on the record by the landlord-appellant in the enquiry held by the Rent Controller on the objections of the tenant to show that the landlord-appellant bona fide believed that his son will be married after three years or even a little later of the moving of the petition under Section 21 of the Act. It has in fact come on the record that the concerned son of the landlord-appellant was not married even till the passing of the impugned order by the Rent Control Tribunal on March 4,1986 i.e. after about 5" years of August 8,1980 when the petition under S. 21 of the Act was moved and the order for giving the premises on limited tenancy for three years was obtained from the Rent Controller. The boy is not stated to have even been engaged even till now. From all this it is clear that there was no basis for the learned Rent Controller entertaining the plea that the marriage of his son was likely to be performed after the three years of August, 8,1980 and that the landlord appellant willfully withheld the information regarding the age of his son from the Rent Controller in order to secure his permission by suppressing that material fact. The age of the boy was a basic fact from which the Rent Controller was to judge the genuineness and the correctness or otherwise of the alleged ground for the creation of the limited tenancy of only three years. In case the parties did not furnish information regarding the age of the son of the appellant to the Rent Controller, it was then his duty to have solicited information in that behalf. The fact that the Rent Controller did not even try to find out the age of the boy and just accepted the version of the landlord-appellant that he would require the premises after three years when his son would be getting married without even trying to find out the age of the son clearly shows that the Rent Controller passed the order of granting permission mechanically and without application of mind. The fact that the tenant had accepted the statement of the landlord-appellant about the existence of the ground for the creation of the limited tenancy did not improve the matter for the landlord-appellant as the Rent Controller had to be satisfied of the ground of the landlord independently of the question of the consent of the tenant, who being in the dire need of accommodation could succumb to the design of the landlord. The acceptance of the alleged ground by the tenant thus did not relieve the Rent Controller of his duty of making a probe in the matter which was necessary for him to do so for reaching his satisfaction in the matter. The courts below were thus right in taking the view that the appellant by withholding the said information from the Rent Controller had played a fraud on the Rent Controller in the matter of securing his permission and the order granting permission was passed by the Rent Controller mechanically and without application of mind. Thus there is no force in the appeal and the same is dismissed. I make no order as to costs.