TEK CHAND Vs. RAM DAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the tenant under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, against an order of eviction passed against him with respect to premises situated in House No. 333, Chhata Lal Mian Darya Ganj, Delhi. The premises in the occupation of the tenant consist of one room and a verandah. The eviction of the appellant has been ordered on the ground that he has acquired vacant possession or an allotment of another residence situated at Nai Basti, Seelampur, Shahdara. The eviction order was passed by the Additional Rent Controller and the same has been confirmed by the Rent Control Tribunal. The tenant has appealed to this Court.

(2.) The first submission made on behalf of the appellant is that the premises from which eviction has been ordered are occupied by him for residence as well as profession and, hence he is not liable-to be ejected under Section 14(1)(h) of the Act. It has been found as a fact that the premises were let for residence. Moreover, there is only one room in which the appellant resides alongwith his family and even if he uses that room incidentally for his profession as a Hakim it cannot be said that the room was let for both residence as well as profession. In any case, this question is not open in second appeal under the Delhi Rent Control Act.

(3.) The next question is : as to whether the appellant has actually acquired vacant possession of a residence or alternative accommodation at Shahdara. There is no doubt that the appellant has been allotted a plot at Seelampur on which he had constructed a temporary construction. The Tribunal has dealt with this question by saying that it does not matter how temporary The shelter built by the tenant was because Section 14(1)(h) applies as soon as the tenant occupies an alternative accommodation however unsuitable it might be. There is also evidence that the said construction was later on demolished. Concerning the subsequent demolition of the said structure, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that even if it was demolished, it would not make any difference because the appellant did occupy that structure as a residence for some period and had even got his ration cards transferred for that period to Seelampur. Normally, this view of the Tribunal could not be the subject-matter of appeal under the provisions of Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, but, there are some other factors which go to show that a substantial question of law arises in this appeal.