Judgement

GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I. : The short question of law which arises in this appeal is whether the partition of the coparcenary property among the coparceners can be said to be "an acquisition by transfer" within the meaning of S. 14 (6) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (Act No. 59 of 1958) (hereinafter called the Act ). This question arises in this way. The premises in question are a part of a bungalow situate at Racquet Court Road, Civil Lines, Delhi. The bungalow originally belonged to the joint Hindu family consisting of respondent No. 2, Mr. B. S. Poplai and his two sons, respondent No. 1, Major Ajit Kumar Poplai and Vinod Kumar Poplai. The three members of this undivided Hindu family portioned their coparcenary property on May 17, 1962, and as a result of the said partition, the present premises fell to the share of respondent No 1. The appellant V. N. Sarin had been inducted into the premises as a tenant by respondent No 2 before partition at a monthly rental of Rs. 80. After respondent No 1. got this property by partition, he applied to the Rent Controller for the eviction of the appellant on the ground that he required the premises bona fide for his own residence a