HEM CHAND BAID Vs. PREM WATI PAREKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal filed by the tenant appellant raises the question of interpretation of Clause (h) of proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 59 of 1958. The order of eviction was passed against the tenant under the said clause. Clause (h) which affords ground of eviction to a landlord reads as follows ; "that the tenant has whether before or afer commencement of this Act, built, acquired vacant possession of, or been allotted, a residence;"

(2.) Admittedly the appellant-tenant had acquired possession of new premises at Y-42 Hauz Khas, New Delhi on May 18, 1967 and reverted to the suit premises in October 1967 before the notice of termination of tenancy was given by the landlord. The learned single Judge (B.C. Misra J) faced some difficulty in reconciling certain decision of this Court and Supreme Court. The learned single Judge has, therefore, set out the following questions of law for our decision:

(3.) The learned single Judge has further referred fur decision the question about the eviction of the appellant on the grounds mentioned in clause (d) and clause (e) of sub-section(i) of section 14. We find that the Rent Control Tribunal has rejected the landlord's prayer for eviction the grounds mentioned in clauses (d) and (e) of proviso tosub-secton(l)of Sctionl4and no appeal is filed by the landlord respondent against the said part of the judgement of the Tribunal. So for as the landlord is concerned, the matter stands concluded in regard to these two grounds and we, therefore, do not find any need to decide the question of eviction on the said two grounds.