Arun B. Saharya, J.

( 1 ) IN this second appeal, under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as the Act , arising out of an order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 10th April 1986 affirming order of eviction of the appellant-tenant made by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, under Section 14 (1) (b) of the Act, the main question of law which has arisen is: whether Clause (b) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act applies to residential premises let out to a company also.

( 2 ) THE relevant facts lie within a narrow compass. The appellant is a public company having its registered office at Calcutta. The respondent let out his property No. 1 M-11, Greater Kailash No. 11, New Delhi, hereinafter referred to as the demised premises, to the appellant on terms and conditions contained in a deed of lease executed between the parties on 17th January, 1980. Clause (11) (c) of the lease deed contains one of the lessee s covenants in the following terms.

(C) "to use the demised premises for residential purpose only. "while in possession of the demised promises, the appellant has purchased a vacant residential house No. F-77a, Green Park, New Delhi, hereinafter called the acquired property. The respondent raised this as a ground to seek eviction of the appellant under Clause (h) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. The appellant has pleaded in the written statement that it "is using the premises presently as a guest House, and officers Club as also for holding Company functions including officials get-together and conference etc. " It is contesting eviction on the plea, inter alia, that a company cannot reside; and that neither the demised premises is being actually used nor can the acquired property be used by it as "a residence". After the pleadings were completed, the respondent made an application under Order XII rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying for an order for eviction of the appellant on the basis of the admission that it has got vacant possession of the acquired property.

( 3 ) THE Controller found, on the basis of the appellants written statement, that the appellant "does not deny that it has purchased property at F-77a, Green Park, New Delhi". He found no merit in the contention that Section 14 (1) (b) of the Act is applicable only to natural persons and not a company or other justice persons. The plea raised on behalf of the appellant that the acquired property has to be demolished and rebuilt and as such it cannot besaid to be available to the appellant as a residence was also rejected by the Controller. For want of specific denial of the pertinent facts averred in the eviction petition, the Controller passed an order of eviction against the appellant in respect of the demised premises undersection 14 (l) (b ). In appeal, the Tribunal confirmed- the order made by the Controller. The Tribunal also found that the appellant s intention to demolish the acquired property and to rebuild it "is of no consejucence" in as much as the residence house has been purchased by the appellant after becoming the tenant in the suit premises. " Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal by an order dated 10th April 1986, from which the present appeal has arisea.

( 4 ) THE second appeal has come up for hearing before us as a learned single judge before whom it came up in normal course, was of the opinion that this is a fit case which should be heard by a larger bench as he felt that the following questions of law arise :

1. What is the true scope and ambit of Section (14) (h) of the Act and how far is it applicable to limited companies using premises for the purpose of housing its employees and officers ?

2. Whether Section 14 (l) (h) applies to cases where a limited company has obtained different premises to enable its different officers to use the premises for their residence ?

3. Whether for the purpose of Section 14 (l) (h) of the Act,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document