( 1 ) THIS is a second appeal filed against the judgment of Shri O. P. Divedi, Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi dated 29th January, 1990 whereby he conflimed the findings that the respondent herein needs the premises in dispute bonafide for his residence and the members of his family dependent upon him and the appellant, Om Parkash has acquired vacant possession of House No. E-19, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi after 1978.

( 2 ) IN brief the facts of the case are that Vaid Shyam Sunder-respondent herein alleged in his eviction petition that he being the owner/landlord of the suit premises let out the same to the appellant for residential purposes and that he requires the same bonafide for his residence and for the residence of his family members dependent upon him and that he has co other suitable residental accommodation for his residence and for the residence of the members of his family at Delhi. The other ground of eviction, which the respondent/ landlord has taken is that the appellant has constructed a residential house E-19, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi in 1978, after the commencement of the tenancy and that he is also liable to be evicted under the provisions of Section 14-1 (h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

( 3 ) THE appellant contested the eviction petition taking various pleas. The first objection is regarding the purpose of letting. According to him, the purpose of letting was resideatial-cum-comnieicial and that he has been making use of one room for commercial purpose i e. by silling milk from there within the knowledge of the respondent landlord. No order of eviction can be passed under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Act in the preseat case. The other objection taken by him is tfaac the need of the respondent/landlord is not bonafide and genuine. His daughters are married. The respondent is settled at Kaithal where be is residing, though occasionally visits Delhi and stays in the mezzanine floor in the property in dispute. He, however, admitted regarding the construction of a house by him in the year, 1978. The appellant s case is that no doubt he built a house No. E-19, Adarsh Nagar, which has three rooms on the ground floor and a barsati on the first floor but that house has been let out by him to a tenant and the same is not available to the appellarit for occupation and as such no eviction order can be passed under Section 1 (1) (h) of the Act.

( 4 ) BOTH the courts below after appreciating the evidence on record came to a concurrent finding of facts that the premises in dispute were let out to the appellant only for a residantial purpose and that the need of the respondent/ landlord is bona fide. There is also a concurrent finding of facis of both the courts below that the appellant/tenant has built up house No. E-19, Adaish Nagar, Delhi in 1978 i. e. after the creation of the tenancy of the suit premises. It has also been found correct, as a matter of fact, that at least one room is available to the appellant/landlord for occupation in the House No. E-19, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi which has been constructed by him even if his plea that he let out the other portion in that house to a tenant is believed. On account of the concurrent findings of both the courts below, eviction order passed by the Additional Rent Con; roller under Section 14 (1) (e) and 14 (1) (h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act stands confirmed.

( 5 ) THE question which arises in this case is whether this second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Ac" is maintainable when there are concurrent findings of facts of both the courts below. An appeal to this Court under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act lies only if some substantial question of law is involved. In none of the grounds urged before this Court, I find that any substantial question of law is involved and as such I find myself in difficulty in entertaining this appeal under Section 39 of the Act in view of the concurrent findings of the facts of both the courts below. The argument of t