1. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner against an order of learned Additional Rent Control Tribunal (ARCT) dated 3rd November 2006 whereby he reversed the order of learned Additional Rent Controller(ARC) allowing the eviction petition filed by the landlord (petitioner herein) under Section 14(1)(h) of Delhi Rent Control Act (DRC Act).

.2. The facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the petitioner filed an eviction petition against the respondent under section 14(1)(a) (c) (j)(h) and (k) of DRC Act. The learned ARC dismissed the eviction petition of the petitioner under Section 14 (1) (a) (c) and (j) and decreed the same under Section 14(1) (h) and (k) vide his order dated 18th

.January 2001. With respect to Section 14(1) (k) the learned ARC ordered an inquiry which is pending. The respondent preferred an appeal before the ARCT and the learned ARCT vide the impugned order reversed the order of the learned ARC under Section 14 (1) (h), however, maintained the order under Section 14 (1) (k) of the DRC Act. The petitioner (landlord) has assailed the order of the learned ARCT.

.3. The only ground on which the eviction petition was allowed is that the respondent, who is an advocate, had acquired an alternate accommodation at the premises bearing number E-382, Greater Kailash Part-II, New Delhi after commencement of the Act and the respondent was residing there along with his family members. The finding of learned ARC are as under:-“Section 14(1) (h) of the Act. 10. The case of the petitioners is that the respondent has acquired the vacant possession of the residential house number E-382, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi after the commencement of the Act and the respondent is residing there along with his mother and family members. The case of the respondent is that his mother has a house t E-382, greater Kailash-II and he resides at the suit premises but only visit merely every day to his mother at that house. AW1 has deposed that the respondent alognwith his family members has been residing I his own housed at E-382, GK-II, New Delhi for the last 15 years and neither the respondent nor any members of his family has been residing in the suit premises. In the cross examination AW1 has deposed that respondent and his family are not residing in the premises for the last 12/14 years and he has attended the Muharat of G.K. house and he had seen the voter list of the suit premises for the current year where the name of the respondent does not feature. EW1 on the other hand has deposed that he did not owned nor built nor acquired any other property in Delhi and only his mother has got her house in South Delhi and has shifted there and she is 85 years of age. The respondent has deposed that he did not have any ration card. He admitted that his election card was at the address of E-382, G.K.-II. He admitted that he had Muharat and New year party at E-382, GK-II on 31.12.1974. He also admitted that he got the invitation card printed on the said occasions which is Ex.RW1/A2 and the same was given to the petitioner. He admitted that he has not filed any document of title in favour of his mother in respect of the property no.E-382, GK-II, New Delhi. Why; if his mother was the owner and respondent was not the owner, he could have filed a document of title. Ex.RW1/A2 specify the name of the respondent Shri J.K. Soni and his mother Smt. Sushila Soni. It also specifies that “kind also note the change of our residential address for the future.” RW1 also admitted that the presently the address of the passport must be address of residence of his other where also he is having his office. The evidence if read as a whole, goes to show that the respondent has acquired the vacant possession of a residence at E382, GK-II and the petitioner has discharged his onus and the respondent has failed to prove that his mother and not he acquired the vacant possession of the same house. The title deed of the property wa