( 1 ). SAO 225/1984 is directed against the judgment dated 22nd May,1984 of the Rent Control Tribunal in RCA No. 106/1983, whereby the learned Tribunal while adjudicating on an appeal against the order dated 29th January, 1983 of the Additional Rent Controller has allowed the appeal holding that the Additional Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal in relation to the premises in question since its jurisdiction did not extend to the territories where the premises were situated.

( 2 ). THE brief facts of the case, as has been noted by the Rent Control Tribunal, are as under : "briefly stating the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that respondent No. 1 Chander Singh filed a petition for eviction against the appellant and Kishan Hari Gupta with respect to the property In dispute detailed in the petition for eviction. The grounds of eviction taken up were under clause (a) and (b) of the proviso to sub- section 1 to Section 14 of the Act. It was contended that Kishan Hari Gupta is the tenant in the suit premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 200/- and is in arrears of rent from 1. 6. 1974 at the rate of Rs. 200/- P. M. which the tenant has failed to pay despite the service of the notice of demand. It was further pleaded that the said tenant has sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the property to the appellant without the consent in writing of respondent landlord and further that the appellant is in unauthorised occupation of the property. 3. In the written statement filed by Krishan Hari Gupta the averments regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant were admitted. He pleaded that the property was sublet with the consent of the respondent landlord and before that he himself was running a sweet meat shop in the suit premises. The arrears of rent were admitted to be due and it was admitted that the service of the notice had been effected. 4. The appellant filed a separate written statement mainly contested the application for eviction. He contended that Kishan Hari Gupta is not a necessary party because it is appellant who is the sole tenant with respect to the property in dispute and Kishan Hari has nothing to do with the property in question. The eviction application was asserted to have been filed filed with the view to extract the money and further it was contended that the petition is barred under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code because the appellant has filed a suit for declaration and injunction praying that he should be declared to be the tenant in property. Another plea raised was that the property is situated in village Khanpur which is not governed by the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act therefore the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. "

( 3 ). THE question that was raised before the additional Rent Controller as also the Tribunal was that whether the premises in question fell within the jurisdiction of the Delhi Rent Control Act or not. The learned Additional Rent Controller while noticing the objection that ". . . the premises in question is situated in village Khanpur and it is not governed by the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act and this court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the case" went on to hold that it had jurisdiction on the ground that the respondent has not proved on record that the premises in dispute is situated in Khanpur (Part) which was already urbanised prior to the year 1966 or that it falls under the remaining area of Khan Pur which was proposed to be urbanised vide notification dated 28th May, 1966. He further held that even assuming that the Delhi Rent control Act became applicable only on March, 1979 and the petition was filed in 1978, still the Rent Court has jurisdiction. For this, he relies upon a judgment of the allahabad High court in Irfan Ahmad Vs. Abdul Wahid and ors. [ AIR 1966 All 166 ].

( 4 ). THE learned Tribunal while dealing with this question formulated it thus : "so far as