( 1 ) A very important question has been raised as to whether the respondent, Harbans Lal Khullar, who retired as male driver from Western Railway, Jaipur Divison, is an employee of the Central Government?

( 2 ) THE facts are short and simple. The respondent retired from Western Railway on 31st August,1992 as male driver. He had let out his premises known as MIG residential flat bearing No. BIA/23c, Pankha Road Residential Scheme, Janakpuri to the petitioner Sh. S. C. Chawla. The flat was let out in 1974 at amonthly rentofrs. 250. 00. While the respondent was in service, he was allotted a staff quarter at railway colony, Bandikui, which he vacated on 30th June, 1992. He wanted to shift and settle at Delhi in his own house. He has in fact already shifted to Delhi along with his wife and is presently residing in a tenanted premises at Pitam Pura, where he is paying a monthly rent @rs. 1500. 00. This house he took on rent on 1st November, 1992. He has no other suitable residential accommodation available at Delhi except the suit property. The petitioner s sons, who are also working and residing outside Delhi visit him off and on along with their families. Most of his relatives are in Delhi and in old age he wants to live in his own house.

( 3 ) THE tenants petitioner herein, filed a leave to defend affidavit, raising the plea that respondent owns sufficient accommodation at Rajinder Nagar. He has already filed two eviction petitions one u/s 14 (1) (e) and other u/s 14 (1) (b) (d) of the Act which are still pending. That the respondent, in fact, wants the petitioner to vacate the house so that he could get higher rent. In replication, the respondent denied that he has any accommodation at Rajinder Nagar. The property at Rajinder Nagar measuring 128 sq. yds. belonged to his father and after the death of his father, he alongwith his four brothers, inherited that property. But the said property was sold by them on 2nd April, 1987. He denied that he wanted to re-let the house in question. The learned Rent Controller after considering the case on merits declined to grant the leave. He found that the tenant had not raised any triable issue.

( 4 ) THE present revision petition has been filed against the said order. Mr. Batra in this revision petition for the first time raised the objection about the maintainability of the eviction petition on the ground that the respondent, being a railway employee, does not fall under the definition of the Central Govt. employee, which is the basic requirement for Cling the petition under Section 14c of the Act. On merits it has been alleged that the court below ignored the factum of joint tenancy. Since the tenancy was joint, eviction against petitioner alone is against law. Moreover respondent is not owner of the property. Premises was acquired from DDA under Hire Purchase agreement. It is, in fact, the DDA who is the owner. Respondent owns house at Rajinder Nagar.

( 5 ) RAISING the legal objection, Mr. Batra contended that the classification as given in Section 14c, cannot be extended so as to cover a railway employee. As per railway manual, the employees of railway are appointed by their General manager or by the Railway Board and not by the Central Govt. Railway employees are a class apart from that of the Central Government employees. Moreover, in his petition under Section 14 (1) (e) the respondent himself has admitted that he is a railway employee. He never mentioned himself to be Central Govt. employee because he knew the difference between railway employee and Central Govt. Employee. The Supreme Court in the case ofk. N. Shukla Vs. Navnit Lal Manilal Bhatt and anr. reported in A. I. R. 1967 Supreme Court page 1331, while discussing the provisions of Section 197 and Section 195 (1) (a) of the Cr. P. C. held that the railway officer officiating in the transportation department is not an officer under the Central Government but is under Railway Board. Therefore relying on these obse