Judgement

GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I. : The short question of law which arises in this appeal is whether the partition of the coparcenary property among the coparceners can be said to be "an acquisition by transfer" within the meaning of S. 14 (6) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (Act No. 59 of 1958) (hereinafter called the Act ). This question arises in this way. The premises in question are a part of a bungalow situate at Racquet Court Road, Civil Lines, Delhi. The bungalow originally belonged to the joint Hindu family consisting of respondent No. 2, Mr. B. S. Poplai and his two sons, respondent No. 1, Major Ajit Kumar Poplai and Vinod Kumar Poplai. The three members of this undivided Hindu family portioned their coparcenary property on May 17, 1962, and as a result of the said partition, the present premises fell to the share of respondent No 1. The appellant V. N. Sarin had been inducted into the premises as a tenant by respondent No 2 before partition at a monthly rental of Rs. 80. After respondent No 1. got this property by partition, he applied to the Rent Controller for the eviction of the appellant on the ground that he required the premises bona fide for his own residence and that of his wife and children who are dependent on him. To this application, he impleaded the appellant and respondent. No.2.

2. The appellant contested the claim of respondent No .1 on three grounds. He urged that respondent No. 1 was not his landlord inasmuch as he was not aware of the partition and did not know what it contained. He also urged that even if respondent No. 1 was his landlord, he did not require the premises bona fide; and so, the requirements of S. 14 (1) (e) of the Act were not satisfied. The last contention raised by him was that if respondent No. 1 got the property in suit by partition, in law it meant that he had acquired the premises by transfer within the meaning of S. 14 (6) of the Act and the provisions of the said section make the present suit incompetent.

3. The Rent Controller held that respondent No. 1 was the exclusive owner of the premises in suit by virtue of partition. As such, it was found that he was the landlord of the appellant. In regard to the plea made by respondent No. 1 that he needed the premises bona fide as prescribed by S. 14 (1) (e), the Rent Controller rejected the case of respondent No. 1. The point raised by the appellant under S. 14 (6) of the Act was not upheld on the ground that acquisition of the suit premises by partition cannot be said to be acquisition by transfer within the meaning of the said section. As a result of the finding recorded against respondent No. 1 under S. 14 (1) (e), however, his application for the appellant s eviction failed.

4. Against this decision, respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal to the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi. The said Tribunal agreed with the Rent Controller in holding that respondent No. 1 was the landlord of the premises in suit and had not acquired the said premises by transfer. In regard to the finding recorded by the Rent Controller under S. 14 (1) (e), the Rent Control Tribunal came to a different conclusion. It held that respondent No. 1 had established his case that he needed the premises bona fide for his personal use as prescribed by the said provision. In the result, the appeal preferred by respondent No. 1 was allowed and the eviction of the appellant was ordered.

5. This decision was challenged by the appellant by preferring a second appeal before the Punjab High Court. The High Court upheld the findings recorded by the Rent Control Tribunal on the question of the status of respondent No. 1 as the landlord of the premises and on the plea made by him that his claim for eviction of the appellant was justified under S. 14 (1) (e). In fact, these two findings could not be and were not challenged before the High Court which was dealing with the matter in second appeal. The main contention which was raised before the High Court was in regard to the cons