( 1 ) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the concurrent findings arrived at by learned Additional Rent Controller, vide orders dated 24. 9. 1997 and Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi vide orders dated 18. 11. 2000. Both the Courts below upheld the plea of the respondent-landlord under Section 14 (1) (i) and Section 22 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act only) and passed an order of eviction against the petitioner.

( 2 ) THE facts relevant for the disposal of this petition, briefly stated, are that therespondent-landlord,a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, having its research Institute at 19, University Road, Delhi is a Public Institution involved in research in science. The petitioner who was employed as Research Assistant was allotted the suit premises on 4. 11. 1987 as an employee of the respondent Institute. In 1989, she was charge-sheeted for misconduct and her services were terminated vide a letter of termination dated 8. 1. 1990. when the petitioner failed to vacate the suit premises allotted to her by the respondent society, an eviction petition was filed against her under section 14 (1) (i) and Section 22 of the Act. The petitioner raised various grounds including a pl,ea that the validity of her termination was pending before the appropriate authority and as such, no eviction order could be passed against her till the dispute regarding the termination of her services was adjudicated upon. Both the Courts below were of the view that for the purpose of Section 14 (1) (i) of the Act, the question to be seen by the Controller was not as to whether a bonafide dispute in regard to the validity of the termination of the services existed but the bonafide dispute in regard to the cessation of the employment was there or not.

( 3 ) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. I have gone through the records of the case.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that both the Courts below failed to appreciate that a bonafide dispute regarding the termination of employment of the petitioner by the respondent was still existing and as such no eviction order could be passed against her under section 14 (1) (i) of the Act. He relies upon Sub-clause (9) of Section 14 of the Act to contend that during the existence of a bonafide dispute regarding cessation of the employment, the Rent Controller has no Jurisdiction to pass eviction orders under Section 14 (1) (i) of the Act. Relying upon a judgement of the Apex Court in Fakirbhai Fulabhai Solanki Vs. The Presiding Officer and Anr. reported in II L. L. J. 1986 page 124, he submits that Section 33 (3) of the Industrial disputes Act prohibits any employer from taking any action against a workman concerned in a dispute by altering to the prejudice of such workman, the conditions of service applicable to him immediately before the commencement of such proceedings; or by discharging or punishing whether by dismissal or otherwise, such protected workman, save with the express permission in writing of the authority before whom the proceedingsarepending. It is argued that since the dispute in regard to the validity of the termination of the services of petitioner by the respondent is pending before the Labour Court and inquiry is going on, the petitioner cannot be thrown out of her residential accommodation which was allotted to her as per conditions of service at the time of her appointment.

( 5 ) ON the other hand learned counsel for the respondent submits that a distinction has to be drawn between a dispute in regard to the validity of the termination and a dispute in regard to the factum of termination. He argues that Section 14 (9) of the Act does not speak of a bonafide dispute in regard to the validity of the termination but speaks of a bonafide dispute regarding cessation of service only and as such upon satisfaction that the