HARDIT SINGH Vs. SURINDER NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution really calls for understanding the true scope, extent and meaning of the judgment of the Supreme Court in S.B. Noronah v. Prem Kumari Khanna, XVI (1979) D.L.T. 116 (S.G.) wherein the Supreme Court has interpreted Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). It also, in the light of the said judgment, calls for understanding the scope of the Powers of the Rent Controller when application is filed before him for possession, after sanction granted under the said section for creating a tenancy for a limited period has expired.

(2.) The petition itself is directed against a seemingly innocuous order of the learned Rent Controller dated 16-11-1981 which reads as under :

(3.) However, before I discuss the scope of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court and the powers of the Rent Controller under Section 21 of the Act when an application is presented to it for possession, it is necessary recaptulate the facts of the present case.