Sunanda Bhandare, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 20th November 1989 whereby the Rent Control Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant-tenant under Section 38 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 20th December 1988. ( 2 ) THE respondent-landlord gave premises bearing no. D-27 Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi to the appellant on amonthly rent of Rs. 1400. 00 for residential purpose for 22 months. The permission for letting out the premises for a limited period under Section 21 of the Act was granted by the Additional Rent Controller by his order dated 25th January 1977. Since the appellant did not vacate the premises on the expiry of 22 months, the respondent on 14th May 1979 filed an application in the court of the Additional Rent Controller seeking warrants of possession against the appellant. The appellant filed his objections on 18th January 1980. The appellant challenged the validity of the permission granted under Section 21 of the Act on the ground that the same has been obtained by playing a fraud upon the court. The appellant inter alia contended before the Additional Rent Controller that the premises were not available for letting on 25th January 1977 because in fact the appellant was given possession in December 1976 itself. Both the courts below came to a finding that though there is a Receipt of payment prior to 25th January 1977, in fact the tenancy commenced only on 1st February 1977. ( 3 ) THE Rent Control Tribunal while considering the case of the appellant in appeal in order to satisfy itself, summoned the respondent- landlord to make a statement on oath. Accordingly, on 2nd June 1989 the statement of the landlord was recorded. The landlord in his statement before the Rent Control Tribunal stated that he had realised a sum of Rs. 2800. 00 by Receipt Ext. DHW1/1, however that Receipt was issued on 1st February 1977. He stated that he had advertised the premises in The Hindustan Times on 28th November 1975 and the appellant had contacted him on the same day for creation of tenancy under Section 21 of the Act. 2800. 00 by Receipt Ext. DHW1/1, however that Receipt was issued on 1st February 1977. He stated that he had advertised the premises in The Hindustan Times on 28th November 1975 and the appellant had contacted him on the same day for creation of tenancy under Section 21 of the Act. Accordingly, an application under Section 21 of the Act was filed which was fixed before the court on 8th December 1976, however the application was ultimately allowed only on 25th January 1977. The respondent-landlord stated that the disposal of the application was delayed because the appellant did not appear before the Additional Rent Controller on two dates. The respondent-landlord stated that he had realised the sum of Rs. 2800. 00 from the appellant as damages because the accommodation had to be kept vacant for over two months. ( 4 ) ONE of the main grounds on which the appellant has challenged the impugned order in this Court is that he was not allowed to cross-examine the respondent-landlord or allowed to lead additional evidence and rebut the statement made by the landlord before the Rent Control Tribunal on 2nd June 1989. ( 5 ) IN my view, this grievance of the appellant is totally unjustified. The appellant s counsel was present before the Rent Control Tribunal when the statement of the respondent-landlord was recorded. There is nothing to indicate that a request was made for cross-examination of the respondent-landlord at that time. The appellant did not move any application even thereafter for calling the respondent-landlord for cross-examination. The appellant however moved an application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 37 of the Act for bringing on record certain documents mentioned in the said application and prove the same. On perusal of the said application it appears that these documents pertain to correspondence between the appellant and the Bank and some of the customers of the appellant who, according to the appellant, had written to the appellant at the address of the demised premises in the month of December 1976. This application was dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal by its order dated 18th August 1989. This application was dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal by its order dated 18th August 1989. The Rent Control Tribunal has observed in the said order that a similar application was moved by the appellant before the Additional Rent Controller asking for production of the same documents but when the application came up before the Additional Rent Controller, the said application was not pressed by the appellant and was consequently dismissed. The Rent Control Tribunal has also observed -that it cannot be said that these documents sought to be produced by the appellant were not in his possession previously and the appellant had not shown any reason why he could not produce them during trial. I agree with the observations of the Rent Control Tribunal. All these documents were all through in the possession of the appellant. It was always his case that he was in possession of the premises prior to 25th January 1977. He ought to have, therefore, produced these documents right in the beginning when the trial had begun. In fact, the order sheet filed by the respondent alongwith his reply indicates that the objections of the appellant were pending before the Additional Rent Controller for over 5 years and adequate opportunity was given to the appellant to prove his case and lead evidence. In any event, in my view, none of these documents would have been useful to rebut the statement of the respondent-landlord made by him before the Rent Control Tribunal. ( 6 ) IT was next contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that even though he had filed the objections after the limited period of tenancy had expired as held by the Supreme Court in Suhhash Kumar Lata v. R. C. Chiba and Another, AIR 1989 SC 458 that since the sanction was obtained by the landlord from the Rent Controller permitting limited tenancy rights in the disputed premises after the possession was already handed over to the appellant in December 1976 without disclosing this fact to the Additional Rent Controller, the permission obtained was defective and the sanction was void. ( 7 ) IN my view, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Subhash Kumar Lata s case (supra) is not applicable in the present case because there are concurrent findings of both the courts below that the premises were actually let out to the appellant on 2nd February 1977, that is after the permission was obtained from the Additional Rent Controller on 25th January 1977. It is needless to add that the appellant has continued in possession of the premises almost for 11 years after the expiry of the limited tenancy. I, therefore, see no ground to interfere. Dismissed in limini. No costs.