( 1 ) THE avowed intention of the Delhi Rent Control act 1958, (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) as contained in its preamble,is to provide for control of rents and evictions in Delhi. It is indeed paradoxical that in the present case the protection of the Act is sought by Shri Lima Shankar Sharma (Respondent/tenant herein) in respect of the tenancy granted to him by Shri shiv Shankar Rastogi (Petitioner/landlord herein ). This in respect of a part of the premises bearing No. 5770, jogi wara, Nai Sarak, Delhi. Shri Sharma, who is hereinafter referred to as Tenant, is the himself a landlord, being the owner of residential flat No. 114, first Floor, Chilla Dhallupura, New Delhi by virtue of his being a member of the Leiah Group Housing Society. The Tenant has sought exemption from eviction for a period of ten years by virtue of the provisions of section 14 (1) (hh) of the Act. The Petitioner/landlord had successfully contended before the Additional Rent controller that this provision cannot be availed of by the Tenant as the said flat had been allotted to him. That finding, however, has been revered by the additional Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, in the impugned judgment dated 8. 11. 2000, in whose opinion the said flat was constructed and completed near or around November, 1992 and since the ten years period as per Section 14 (1) (hh) of the Act had not elapsed, no cause of action to file the eviction petition had accrued in favour of the Landlord. The difference of opinion between the controller and the Tribunal is that the former considered the tenant as an allottee, whereas the latter considered the tenant as having built the flat. The relevant provisions read as follows :-

14 (1): 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. Provided that the Controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely :- (a) to (g ). . . . . . (h) that the tenant has, whether before or after the commencement of the Act, acquired vacant possession of, or been allotted, a residence; (hh) that the tenant has, after the commencement of the Delhi Rent control (Amendment) Act, 1988, built a residence and ten years have elapsed thereafter;

( 2 ) SECTION 14 (1) (h) prior to its amendment in 1988 was in the following words - "that the Tenant has, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, built, acquired vacant possession of, or been allotted, a residence. " The only amendment to this sub-section was the deletion of the word built which has been underlined above for clarification. Simultaneous with the deletion of the word built in sub-Section (h), the new Sub-Section (hh) was incorporated into the Act and this word/concept was expressed therein.

( 3 ) THE Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Bill 1988 came up for perusal of the Parliament on its introduction in the Rajya Sabha, by the Minister of Urban Development. On the question at issue it was stated that - "the second objective of this Bill is to give a boost to house building activity and to promote maintenance of the existing housing stock in a reasonable state of repair. This is sought to be achieved mainly by exempting from the purview of the Rent Control law newly constructed premises for a period of ten years from the date of completion of such construction, and providing for periodical revision and updating of standard rent to compensate for inflation etc. " While considerable debate was generated on other aspects of the Amendment, a perusal of the Speeches discloses that on this issue there was general concurrence and support. A perusal of the Parliamentary Debates in the Lok Sabha reveal that a few of its Hon ble Members made a reference to these provis