R S BAKSHI Vs. H K MALHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order of dismissal of the application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC'), present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioners.

(2.) Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has contended that in view of the plain language of Section 14(1 )(h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), it was sufficient that the respondent was allotted a flat by the Society. In support of his contentions, he has cited Ganpat Ram Sharma Vs. Smt Gayatri Devi 32 (1987) DLT 371, Vardesh Chander Chanana Vs. Prem Nath & Anr. 19 (1981) DLT 346, Baij Nath Vs. Bhagat Singh & anr. (43) 1991 DLT 325, Mr. T N Rai Vs. Rent Control Tribunal 1997 III AD Delhi 579 and Hem Chand Baid Vs. Prem Wati Parekh AIR 1980 Delhi 1.

(3.) I need not go into the question whether Legislature intended that a tenant has acquired vacant possession or has been allotted a residence is sufficient to invoke Section 14(1 )(h) of the Act irrespective of the fact whether possession thereof was taken by the tenant or not. There cannot be two opinion that Court would not go into the question of sufficiency or insufficiency of accommodation while dealing with eviction of a tenant under Section 14(1 )(h) of the Act.