( 1 ) THIS judgment will dispose of three appeals, namely, S. A. O. Nos. 138, 139 and 140 of 1979 by three different tenants against their landlady Smt. Gayatri Devi in whose favour the contraller and the Rent Control Tribunal passed an order of eviction on the ground covered by clause (h) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act ) against all the three appellants. It has been held that the three tenants have built ard required vacant possession of residential house No A-6/25 Krishna Nagar, near Lal Quarter, Delhi. It has also been held that Ganpat Ram, tenant-appellant has been allotted residential quarter No. 3 7,seelampurlll, Shahdara, Delhi. Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the judgements of the Controller and the Tribunal on the ground that the three tenants-appellants have neither but nor acquired vacant possession of the residential House No. A-6/25, Krishna Nagar, Near Lal Quarter, Delhi, than in any case the respondent landlady is not entitled to claim eviction under clause (h) on the ground of waiver and lanches. He further submits that Ganpat Ram has not been allotted the quarter at Seelampur and that in any case he is not in possession of the same. He further submits that the Act is not applicable to the quarter alleged to have been allotted to Ganpat Ram, tenant and as sueh ground covered by clause (h) is not available to the landlady. Lastly he submits that all the three ingredients mentioned in clause (h) namely, built, acquired vacant possession of and allot- ment of residence must be fulfiled before an order of eviction can be passed against the tenant.

( 2 ) CLAUSE (h) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act is as under :

"s. 14 (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrasy contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any court or controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant ; Provided that the controller may on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds :- only ; namely :- (h) that the tenant has, whether before of after the commencement of this Act, built acquired vacant possession of, or been allotted, a residence;"

( 3 ) ON account of rapid growth of population of Delhi landlords were temped to terminate the tenancies of the existing tenants and ask for their eviction inorder to let out the premises to the new tenants at high rents. Rent Control legislation for Delhi and New Delhi was passed for the first time during the Second World War and since then there has been rent control legislation applicabe to various urban areas in the Union Territory of Delhi. The Rent Control Act is enacted to provide for the control of rents and evictions. The object of clause (h) as reproduced above, in view of shortage of housing possession of the said house at Krishna Nagar. It has been proved on record that Dev Karan, Kul Bhushan and Kalu Ram admitiedly related to the three tenants are in occupation of house at Krishna Nagar as licences of the three appellants-tenants. This is a finding of fact and cannot be challenged in the second appeal uilder section 39 of Act.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the tenants then submits that the landlady is a purchaser of the property from one Dina Nath and she and her vendor have always been aware that the three tenants are owners of the house at Krishna Nagar. On account of this knowledge it is argued that the landlady-respondent waived her rights under clause (h ). There is no substance in this argument. There is no plea that the landlady ever waived or was guilty of laches. No evidence was led by any of the parties. The facts are that the respondent- landlady purchased this property from Dina Nath on 9/4/1973 There is nothing an on record to show that Dina Nath was ever aware