The interpretation of clause (h) of the proviso to Section 14 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, and the requirement that the tenant must be in possession of an allotted residence on the date of the application for eviction.

( 1 ) THIS is a tenant s appeal against the order of the rent control tribunal dated January 13, 1972.

( 2 ) THE appellant Gjan Singh is a tenant of house No. 40-4j/4921 Mtliulcd in Raigarpura, Karol Bagh. New Delhi on a monthly rent of Rs. 20. 00. In this house he has one room. kitchen, varandah and common bath, latrine and a court yard in his occupation. The respondent Tarlok Singh is the landlord. He purchased this property on March 30. 196s. The appellant is a tenant since the days of the previous o\vner. On March 30, 1968, he attorned to the res- pondent.

( 3 ) ON May 23, 1969, the landlord filed a petition for the tenantejectment. Ejectment was sought on clause (h) of the proviso lo S. 14 (U of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ("the Act" ). That Clause reads:

" (H) that the tenant has. whether before or after tile cummencemeni of this Act, built, acquired vacant possession of, or been allotted, a residence. "

( 4 ) THE landlord s case was that on February 6. 1966, the tciiani was allotted a resid-ence by the Central Public Works Department ("c. P. W. D. "), that is, quarter No. 489 Sector V, R. K. Puram. New Delhi and he promised to vacate the premises in dispute but did not shift to his Government allotted accommodation. It was said dial the tenant "took possession of the said accommodation but further let it out to somebody in order to get enhanced rent and has retained the suit premises without any basis".

( 5 ) THE tenant contested the case. He raised three principal defences. Firstly, he said that the notice to quit was not valid. Secondly. he denied that the premises liad been let to him only for residential purpose. Thirdly, he denied that he was in possession of any allotted accommodation.

( 6 ) THE rein controller by order dated January 27, 1971, passed an order of eviction. He found that the notice to quit was valid. that the letting purpose was residential and that the C. P. W. D. did allot a quarter to the tenant on February 5. 1966 possession whereof was handed over to him on February 7, 1966 by the department. He further found that the tenant surrendered possession of the quarter in April 1968 to the department.

( 7 ) IN his evidence before the controller the landlord produced a clerk of C. P. W. D. He proved that the quarter was allotted to the tenant on February 5, 1966 which remained with him til! April 10. 1968. In his evidence the tenant admitted this tact of allotment. But he, however, said that he himself never shifted to that quarter. The quarter was used by his son for studies and that is why he got the allotment. Later he found that the quarter was situated at a very inconvenient distance and, therefore, he voluntarily surrendered it as he had no use for it. He also said that he had attained the age of Superannuation and was getting yearly extension in service and. therefore, was not entitled to retain the Government allotted accommodation. He said he was entitled to retain his private rented house as lie was on the verge of retirement. The rent controller found the purpose of allotment for studies not proved. The tenant also did not prove that he had attained the age of superannuation. But one fact was clearly established. It was this: that the quarter was allotted to the tenant in February 1966 which remained in his possession till April 10, 1968. In the view of the controller clause (h) applied. He, therefore, passed an order of eviction, as I have said.

( 8 ) THE tenant appealed lu llie rcm control trihuiial. The tribunal affirmed the findings of the controller and held that the notice was valid and the letting purpose was residential. Following a division bench rilling ol this Court in lluilu Mill v. Ruinesimar Nalti. 1970 R. C. R. 532 ( ) the tribunal held in agreement with tlie controller that the tenant was liable to ejectment as he had once been alloted a quarter and it did nut matter that he surrendered possesion thereof in April 1968. The tenant s appeal was dismissed.

( 9 )