Clause (h) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 can only be invoked by the landlord against the tenant if the latter builds, acquires vacant possession of, or is allotted a residence after the commencement of tenancy.

( 1 ) THE short question, which has been referred to the Division Bench, is whether a tenant is liable to be ejected from any premises under clause (h) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (59 of 1958) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) if he has built, acquired vacant possession of or been allotted a residence before the commencement of the tenancy. The question had arisen in S. A. O. Nos. 125 of 1967 and 161-D of 1965. Brief reference has been made to the facts in the case of S. A. O. No. 125 of 1967, and the learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the answer to the above question in S. A. O. No. 125 of 1967 would also govern the other case.

( 2 ) THE premises in dispute, situated in Golf Links Colony, New Delhi, were let out to Shrimati Avinash Kaur appellant for her residence on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,400. 00 on June 1, 1962. Before that, on January 18, 1956 the appellant acquired vacant possession of a residential house, known as Bungalow No. 3, South End Road, New Delhi. The landlord respondent sought the ejectment of the appellant from the premises in dispute under clause (h) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act which reads as under:-

" (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary 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 x x x x x x x x XXX

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

IT was stated that as the appellant had purchased bungalow No. 3, South End Road, with vacant possession, she was liable to ejectment under the above clause, The application for ejectment was resisted by the tenant- appellant on the ground that as the bungalow on South End Road had been purchased by her before the commencement of the tenancy and not during the continuance of tenancy, she was not liable to ejectment under the above clause. The above plea of the appellant did not find favour with the Additional Controller. He also did not find force in some of the other contentions which were raised on behalf of the appellant and with which we are not concerned. In the result an order for eviction from the premises in dispute was made in favour of the landlord-respondent against the tenant-appellant. On appeal the Rent Control Tribunal agreed with the Additional Controller and affirmed the order of eviction. When the matter came up in Second Appeal before Ismail J" reliance was placed on behalf of the landlord respondent upon two cases- Gian Singh v. Surinder Lal and another, decided by Mahajan J. reported in (1963) 65 PLR 300, and Jaswant Singh v. Daya Singh and others decided by Grovel J and reported in (1966) 2 DLT 183. As against that, the counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision of S. K. KLapur J. in the case of Brijender Kumar v. Lachhman Das Duggal, reported in llr (1966) 19 (2) Punjab 522, wherein the learned Judge had expressed his doubt about the correctness of the decision of Mahajan J. in Gian Singh v. Surinder Lal and another. As Ismail J. found it difficult to agree with the view expressed in the cases of Gian Singh v Surinder Lal and another, and Jaswant Singh v Daya Singh and others ), he referred the matter to a larger Bench.

( 3 ) WE have heard Mr. Radhey Mohan Lal and Mr. Harjinder Singh on behalf of the tenant-appellant, and Mr. D. V. Patel and Mr. S. N. Chopra on behalf of the landlord respondents, and are of the view that clause (h) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act can only be invoked by the landlord against the tenant if the latter builds, a