Judgment

VAIDIALINGAM, J. :- In this appeal, Mr. Hardev Singh, learned counsel on behalf of the tenant-appellant, challenges the judgment and order dated December 7, 1970 of the Delhi High Court in S.A.O. No. 110-D of 1966. Special leave has been granted by this Court limited to the question whether the High Court was justified, in view of Section 39 (2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) in setting aside the decisions of the two subordinate authorities, dismissing the application filed by the respondent-landlord for evicting the appellant.

2. The facts leading up to this appeal may be briefly stated. The appellant took on lease, the first floor of the premises in question from the respondent on January 22, 1964 on a monthly rent of Rs. 250/-. The respondent who was the owner of the entire premises was then occupying the ground floor. The landlord filed an application, before the Rent Controller on November 26, 1964 for eviction of the appellant from the portion in his occupation as lessee, on two grounds; (a) that the tenant has sublet a part of the premises, and (b) that he required the premises bona fide for his occupation as a residence for himself and his family members. The latter claim was based under clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act, which is as follows :

"that the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation."

3. The tenant opposed the claim of the landlord on both the grounds. He denied the allegation of sub-letting. He also contended that the landlord s requirement for his occupation was not bona fide. The tenant s plea was that the portion of the premises in his occupation was sufficient for his purpose. The Rent Controller accepted the plea of the tenant that there was no sub-letting. He also accepted his plea that the requirement of the landlord for his occupation was not bona fide. On these findings, the landlord s application was dismissed. These two findings were also confirmed in the appeal filed by the landlord before the Rent Control Tribunal. The question, regarding sub-letting, having been decided against the landlord by both the Tribunals, no longer survives and it was also not agitated before the High Court. It may be stated at this stage that the findings of both the Tribunals on the question of bona fide requirement were recorded against the landlord, on the sole ground that the landlord must have foreseen his requirement for additional accommodation even at the time when he let out a part of the premises on January 22, 1964 to the appellant and therefore he was not entitled to ask for eviction under clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. It is the view of both the Tribunals that when eviction is asked for within about 11 months of the letting, the claim of the landlord cannot be considered to be bona fide.

4. The landlord carried the matter in appeal before the High Court under Section 39 of the Act. That section runs as follows :

"39 (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), an appeal shall lie to the High Court from an order made by the Tribunal within sixty days from the date of such order;

Provided that the High Court may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of sixty days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.

(2) No appeal shall lie under sub-section (1) unless the appeal involves some substantial question of law."

5. Before the High Court, counsel for both parties made a representation that the Rent Control Tribunal has not recorded a finding on the question whether the premises available with the landlord can be