Judgment

M.K. MUKHERJEE, J.- Special leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Delhi High Court dated 27-4-1992 dismissing the application filed by the appellant under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (Act for short) for revision of the order of the Rent Controller, Delhi dated 14-2-1992 rejecting his application for recovery of possession of his tenanted premises made on the ground specified in Section 14-C(1) of the Act.

3. The appellant and his brother, the respondent 2 herein, are the owners of House No. 65/11, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi. They let out its entire ground floor (except the garage) to the Respondent 1 (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) in 1959 at a monthly rental of Rs 300. The appellant, who was an employee of the Central Government, retired on 30-4-1987 and shifted, consequent thereto, from the government quarters allotted to him, to the first floor of the house. Respondent 2, who was also an employee of the Central Government, had earlier shifted to the first floor on his retirement in 1982. Thereafter in 1989 he (the appellant) filed an application under Section 25-B(1) of the Act read with Section 14-C(1) of the Act before the Rent Controller, Delhi seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground that the accommodation available to him and his family members on the first floor was not sufficient.

4. On receipt of the summons of the application the tenant entered appearance and sought - and obtained leave to contest the same on the grounds that the accommodation available to the appellant was more than sufficient and that, in any case, the sufficiency or insufficiency of accommodation could not be gone into in an application under Section 14-C.

5. After hearing the parties, the Controller rejected the application solely on the basis of the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Madan Lal Lamba v. Tarlok Singh Sehgal{43 (1991) DLT 624} wherein it has been held, relying upon the judgment of this Court in Narain Khamman v. Parduman Kumar Jain {(1985) 1 SCC 1} that where a retired government employee is in possession of an independent dwelling unit he is not entitled to file an application under Section 14-C of the Act and that in such an application the Controller is not entitled to take into consideration the size of the family of the landlord and sufficiency or, insufficiency of the accommodation in his occupation because those considerations can prevail only in an eviction petition filed in accordance with clause (e) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Act.

6. Aggrieved by the rejection of his application the appellant filed a revisional application in the Delhi High Court which was summarily rejected in view of its decision in Madan Lal Lamba {43 (1991) DLT 624}. Hence this appeal.

7. Before we proceed to consider the points raised by the learned counsel for the parties it will be convenient to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act. The Act applies to the premises which are defined by Section 2(i) of the Act as meaning, inter alia, any building or part of a building which is, or is intended to be, let separately for use as a residence or for commercial use or for any other purpose. Chapter III of the Act comprising Sections 14 to 25, relates to "control of eviction of tenants"; and Section 14(1) thereof lays down that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any court or Controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant. However, the various clauses of the proviso thereto lay down certain grounds on which only such recovery of possession can be ordered and clause (e) thereof permits eviction of a tenant if 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 upon him provided that the landlord is the owner of the