The acquisition of vacant possession of a suitable residence, either before or after the commencement of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, can be a ground for eviction under section 13 (1) (h) of the Act, even if the residence was acquired before the creation of the tenancy.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition for revision arising out of an order of eviction made by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Delhi, in reversal of the decision of the first Court by which the suit for ejectment had been dismissed in respect of a flat consisting of three rooms, verandah, kitchen, store etc. which is opposite the Odeon Cinema in Connaught Place, New Delhi.

( 2 ) ON 23rd March 1935 Bhagwan Singh (now deceased) confirmed in writing (Exhibit P 2) the terms of tenancy settled between him and R. B. S. Basakha Singh, the owner of the premises in dispute, in respect of the aforesaid flat bearing No. 28 in Prem House at a rental of Rs. 40. 00 per month. There was a stipulation in that document that he would pay Rs. 45. 00 for the shop underneath the flat which he proposed to take shortly. On 1st October 1939 a similar document was executed (Exhibit P. 3) but on that occasion it covered both the flat and the shop, the rent payable being Rs. 90. 00 per month. In July 1958 a suit for for ejectment was instituted under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 by Daya Singh and his two brothers who were the successors of R. B. S. Basakha Singh through their general attorney Charat Singh against Bhagwan Singh who died during the pendency of the litigation and whose sons and legal representatives Jaswant Singh and others were ordered to be impleaded as defendants by an order dated 5th April 1962. In paragraph I of the plaint it was stated that the plaintiff were the owners of the building constructed on a plot of land in Block c known as Prem House which building contained shops on the ground-floor and flats on the upper floor. In paragraph 2 it was stated that the defendant was in occupation of flat No. 28 consisting of three rooms etc. On the first floor of the said building as a tenant under the plaintiffs at a rental of Rs. 46. 25np per month besides house tax and other charges. In paragraphs 3 and 4 it was alleged that the defendant had built a double storeyed palatial residential building at Original Road, Karol Bagh, either in his own name or in the name of his wife and had started residing in that house and that he had also built a very big house in Barakhamba Colony behind Modern School either in his own name or in the name of his relation of which he had vacant possession and which had been let out by him to some tenant. His eviction was, therefore, sought under section 13 (1) (h) of the Act of 1952. Bhagwan Singh filed a written statement dated 31st October 1958 pleading that the real tenants were Messrs Bhagwan Singh and Sons and therefore, proper parties had not been impleaded. In reply to the allegations in the plaint it was averred that Messrs Bhagwan Singh and Sons were the tenants in the flat, the rate of rent not being denied. It was stated that the plaintiffs had been sending bills to Messrs Bhagwan Singh and Sons in respect of the tenancy premises in dispute and had been receiving payment by cheques given by Messrs Bhagwan Singh and Sons for several years and that Bhagwan Singh alone was not the tenant nor was he residing in the premises. As regards the house in Karol Bagh, it was stated that it belonged exclusively to Smt. Parmeshwar Kaur, the wife of Bhagwan Singh, who was not a partner in Messrs Bhagwan Singh and Sons and that the house at Barakhamba Road was owned by Bhagwan Singh alone and not by Messrs Bhagwan Singh and Sons. It was denied that the tenants had either built or acquired vacant possession of a suitable residence and had thus rendered themselves liable to eviction under section 13 (1) (h) of the Act of 1952. The plaintiffs controverted the aforesaid allegations by a replication. The following issues were framed by the learned Subordinate Judge :- 1. Whether the suit has been filed against a proper party ? 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the defendant is liable to eviction on the ground mentioned in the plaint ? 3. Relief.

( 3 ) IT was Jawant Singh and Mit Singh, two of the sons of Bhagw