AVINASH KAUR Vs. BELI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question, which has been referred to the Division Bench, is whether a tenant is liable to be ejected from any premises under clause (h) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (59 of 1958) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) if he has built, acquired vacant possession of or been allotted a residence before the commencement of the tenancy. The question had arisen in S.A.O. Nos. 125 of 1967 and 161-D of 1965. Brief reference has been made to the facts in the case of S.A.O. No. 125 of 1967, and the learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the answer to the above question in S.A.O. No. 125 of 1967 would also govern the other case.

(2.) The premises in dispute, situated in Golf Links Colony, New Delhi, were let out to Shrimati Avinash Kaur appellant for her residence on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,400.00 on June 1, 1962. Before that, on January 18, 1956 the appellant acquired vacant possession of a residential house, known as Bungalow No. 3, South End Road, New Delhi. The landlord respondent sought the ejectment of the appellant from the premises in dispute under clause (h) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act which reads as under:-

(3.) We have heard Mr. Radhey Mohan Lal and Mr. Harjinder Singh on behalf of the tenant-appellant, and Mr. D.V. Patel and Mr. S.N. Chopra on behalf of the landlord respondents, and are of the view that clause (h) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act can only be invoked by the landlord against the tenant if the latter builds, acquires vacant possession of, or is allotted a residence after the commencement of tenancy. Before, however, we give our reasons for the above conclusion, we may deal, with some of the cases which have a bearing on the matter. In Gian Singh v Surinder Lal and another, the ejectment of the tenant was sought on the ground that he had, after the coming into force of the Act of 1952, built some other premises. Mahajan J., while dealing with clause (h) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (Act No. 38 of 1952) which was more or less similar to the clause with which we are concerned, observed that there was no warrant for holding that the premises must be built by the tenant when he was the tenant of the landlord.