Judgement

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. :- What is the true meaning of the expression tenant has before or after the commencement of the Act, built, acquired vacant possession of, or been allotted, a residence in terms of Cl. (h) of S. 14(l) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) is the question raised in this appeal in the backdrop of interesting set of facts. This is an appeal by the tenant against the judgment and order dated 6th April, 1987 of the Delhi High Court. To the facts first, however, we must go to appreciate the point. The appellant was at all material times since 1968 a tenant of the ground floor of premises No. 2/14, Kalkaji Extension, New Delhi. The premises had been let out in April, 1968 to the appellant at a monthly rent of Rs. 340/- per month by one Shri R. N. Kurra, deceased husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondents Nos. 2 to 8. The premises consist of two bed rooms, one drawing room, one dining room, one kitchen, two bath rooms and court-yard at the back and porch in the front and one store and also one verandah. It is the case of the appellant that originally the appellant had occupied these along with his wife, his aged mother, his son, daughter. brother and sister-in-law. However, the brother and sister-in-law have since moved out and since 1979, the appellants wife Smt. Santosh Raj was only staying with the family off and on for short periods usually when the appellant was on tour. In the meantime on or about 20th July, 1977 the landlord filed eviction petition against the appellant on the ground of bona fide requirement. On or about 25th September, 1978 the appellants wife Smt. Santosh Raj was allotted Flat No. 93, Sadiq Nagar, i.e., a government quarter was given to her due to her employment as a teacher in the Government Girls Higher Secondary School No. III, Kalkaji, New Delhi. She goes to live there leaving the rest of her family in the premises in dispute. It is the case of the appellant and made out in appeal before us that one Shri P. R. Arya and his family were asked to share with the appellants wife on a joint-allotment basis because it was not safe for a lady to live alone. The case of the appellant was that the relationship between the appellant and his wife Smt. Santosh Raj was not very good. There were differences of opinion. The appellant wanted the wife to give up her job and concentrate on the upbringing of the children. The lady was reluctant. She wanted to pursue her own avocation and career. It is highlighted before us that in those circumstances the wife of appellant had applied for government accommodation and had gone to five in the said premises. However, by force of circumstances as the children have grown up and daughters became of marriageable age she was induced to give up her job and allotment and she has come back to the husbands premises being the premises in dispute. On 17th of March, 1986 respondent No. 1 filed in the Court of the Rent Controller, Delhi a petition on the ground that the wife of the appellant Smt. Santosh Raj had been allotted on 25th of September, 1978 a residential quarter from the Directorate of Education, Delhi by virtue of her employment in Government Girls Higher Secondary School No. III, Kalkaji, New Delhi. The appellant therefore came within the mischief of Cl. (h) of S. 14(l) of the Act. Written statement was duly filed in which it was stated that appellant had not acquired any house but that the landlord had tried to take advantage of the strained relationship between the tenant and his wife. It was stated that the tenant had strained relationship with his wife and on account of the same only she had acquired a separate accommodation and started staying there and got her ration card prepared at the same address but since the appellant had grown up children and remained on touring job, therefore, in order to provide the required protection and care, the wife of the appellant came to the house in question temporar