( 1 ) THIS petition has been filed on behalf of Shri Nihal Singh (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the tenant) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and in this petition it has been prayed that the orders dated 2. 4. 1994 passed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal in R. C. Appeal No. 626/91 be set-aside. By the said order the learned Rent Control Tribunal accepted the appeal of Shri Dalip Singh Lamba, respondent herein, (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the landlord) and passed the order of eviction under Section 14 (1 ) (h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the Act) against the tenant.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that landlord had let out a portion of premises No. 20-B/96-B, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi comprising of two rooms, a kitchen, bath, latrine and common backyard and front courtyard, common front and back barandah on the ground floor. On 31st January, 1989 the landlord filed an eviction petition against the tenant under Section 14 (1) (h) of the Act on the ground that the tenant through his wife had acquired vacant possession of house No. RU-371, Pitampura, Delhi from the Delhi Development Authority. The tenant admitted the allotment of the said flat in the name of his wife, but stated that his wife had obtained the said flat with her own independent income. The tenant also contended before the Additional Rent Controller that the premises were let out for residential-cum-commercial purpose and as such the ground under Section 14 (1) (h) of the Act was not available to the landlord. The learned Rent Controller by his order dated 24th August, 1991 rejected the contention of the tenant that the tenanted premises were let out to him for residential-cum-commercial purpose. He, however, held that he had no right of residence in the flat allotted to his wife nor the tenant could stop his wife from selling the flat which was actually sold by her and on this ground he dismissed the eviction petition filed by the landlord.

( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 24th August, 1991 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, the landlord filed an appeal bearing No. RCA 626/91 before the Rent Control Tribunal. The learned Rent Control Tribunal by her order dated 2nd April, 1994 accepted the appeal of the landlord, set-aside the order dated 24. 8. 91 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller and passed the order of eviction under Section 14 (l) (h) of the Act in favour of the landlord and against the tenant with respect to the suit premises. The aforesaid order dated 2nd April, 1994 passed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal has been challenged by the tenant in this petition.

( 4 ) MR. Dhingra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the tenant submitted that acquisition of the DDA MIG Flat No. 371, Block/pocket RU, Pitampura, Delhi by the wife of the tenant would not amount to acquisition of the said flat by the tenant as the said flat was purchased by the wife of the tenant with her own funds and the wife was also living in Patiala and not with the tenant. He, therefore, contended that the tenant could not be made to lose his tenancy because of the acquisition of the said flat by his wife. In support of this contention, learned counsel placed reliance on a judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of B. R. Mehta Vs. Smt. Atma Devi and Ors. , AIR 1987 SC 2220.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the tenant further submitted that the words "has" or "have" in clause (h) of the Act meant that the tenant must have the possession of the property which was alleged to have been acquired by him. on the date, the application for eviction was filed by the landlord. He further submitted that in the present case the application for eviction was filed on 31st January, 1989 and prior to this date the wife of the tenant had already sold the DDA flat mentioned hereinabove. He, therefore, contended that the landlord had no cause of action to file the eviction petition against the tenan