Vijay Kumar Bajaj v. Inder Sain Minocha AIR 1982 Del. 260

In that decision, in the light of Section 21, the following questions were posed: (1) Whether the permission under Section 21 of the Act is invalid in view of Supreme Court judgment in S.B. Noronah case if reasons for not requiring the premises by the landlord for a particular period are not disclosed in his application or his statement before the Controller? (2) Whether before or after permission execution of any agreement in writing to let the premises for the fixed period is necessary, if so, whether such a document requires registration? (3) Whether the proposed agreement of tenancy in writing submitted along with the application under Section 21 of the Act, in this appeal required registration?” The questions were answered by the High Court as follows: (1) Not necessarily. The landlord or the tenant may be able to show that cogent reasons did exist or were within the knowledge of the parties as to why the landlord did not require the whole or a part of his premises for a specified period. (2) No registration is necessary. The agreement in writing may be entered into either before or after grant of permission. (3) An agreement in writing submitted along with the application under Section 21 of the Act is really a proposed agreement. It comes into effect only after the grant of permission under Section 21 of the Act. It does not require registration.