SMT. REVTI DEVI Vs. KISHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the landlord while the respondent is the tenant of the premises in dispute. The landlord applied for the eviction of the tenant on the ground that the tenant had acquired vacant possession of another residence within the meaning of proviso (h) to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act). The tenant defended the petition for eviction on the ground that the alleged another residence had been acquired jointly by the wife of the tenant and by the wife of his brother in equal shares. The Rent Controller held that in the proceeding-, in which the tenant's wife and his sister-in-law had launched against their tenant for his eviction from this another residence, the tenant was examined as a witness for his wife He deposed therein that the accommodation in the possession of his wife was insufficient and therefore an order of eviction against the tenant of his wife and sister-in law was passed. The Rent Controller was further of the view that under proviso (h) to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act, it was not necessary that the tenant himself should have acquired vacant possession of another residence. The Rent Controller, therefore, ordered the eviction of the tenant under section 14(1) (h) of the Act.

(2.) In the first appeal, the Rent Control Tribunal took the view that under section 14(1) (h), the tenant was liable to eviction only if he himself had acquired vacant possession of another residence. If any other member of his family, the wife in the present case, acquired it, the tenant was not liable to ejectment. He, therefore, allowed the appeal and dismissed the landlord's petition for eviction.

(3.) Proviso (h) to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act runs as follows: