( 1 ) THIS second appeal filed by the tenant appellant raises the question of interpretation of Clause (h) of proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 59 of 1958. The order of eviction was passed against the tenant under the said clause. Clause (h) which affords ground of eviction to a landlord reads as follows ; "that the tenant has whether before or afer commencement of this Act, built, acquired vacant possession of, or been allotted, a residence;"

( 2 ) ADMITTEDLY the appellant-tenant had acquired possession of new premises at Y-42 Hauz Khas, New Delhi on May 18, 1967 and reverted to the suit premises in October 1967 before the notice of termination of tenancy was given by the landlord. The learned single Judge (B. C. Misra J) faced some difficulty in reconciling certain decision of this Court and Supreme Court. The learned single Judge has, therefore, set out the following questions of law for our decision:

"the question of law that needs to be decided in this appeal is whether in view of the Supreme Court decision in Gajanan Dattatraya vs. Sherbanu Hosang Patel s (1976 (1) S. C. R-535) case and Avadh Behari J in Munilal s case (1967 R.