JUDGMENT

K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J.- Leave granted. These appeals from the decision of the Delhi High Court raise the question with regard to landlords right to evict the tenant under Section 14-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the Act) and the corresponding right of the tenant to resist the eviction proceedings. Section 14-B is a special provision made by the legislature conferring certain rights to persons belonging to Armed Forces to recover from their tenants immediate possession of the premises for their occupation.

2. Mahendra Raj, the common petitioner in S.L.P. Nos. 7146 and 11425 of 1990, is a tenant occupying the premises of the respondent Col. Ashok Puri. The petitioner in S.L.P. No. 7364 is also a tenant, but occupying the premises belonging to the respondent Brig. V.N. Channa. In the action for eviction brought by the respondents on the ground that they need the premises for their occupation, the tenants sought leave to contest the application. But the Rent Controller was not satisfied with the facts disclosed by the tenants in their affidavits and therefore, denied leave to contest the application for eviction. He considered the affidavits of the parties and accepted the case of the landlord and directed that the tenants shall be evicted. In the case of Mahendra Raj, the Rent Controller made an order dated September 2, 1989 inter alia, observing that the landlord is living in a rented house; that he is paying rent of Rs 2000 p.m.; and that he requires the premises for himself and the members of his family. The eviction order was challenged by the tenant by means of revision petition before the Delhi High Court. Almost simultaneously, the tenant also filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the validity of Section 14-B. On May 10, 1990, the High Court dismissed the revision as well as the writ petition. Against the judgment of the High Court dismissing the writ petition, the tenant has preferred S.L.P. No. 7146 of 1990. Against the order dismissing the revision petition, the tenant has preferred S.L.P. No. 11425 of 1990.

3. The tenant in S.L.P. No. 7364 of 1990 has also challenged the order of eviction in a revision petition before the High Court and we are told that the revision is still pending. Like the other tenant, he has also questioned the validity of Section 14-B before the High Court under Article 226. The High Court dismissed that petition following the decision in Mahendra Rajs case.

4. It would be convenient to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act before dealing with the points raised in these cases. The Act applies to premises which are defined by Section 2(i) as meaning, inter alia, any building or part of a building which is, or is intended to be, let separately for use as a residence or for commercial use or for any other purpose. Section 14 provides that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no decree or order for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be passed by any court or Controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant. This provision is. however, subject to the exceptions provided under several clauses of the proviso. Section 14(1)(e) allows a decree for ejectment to be passed if the court or Controller is satisfied that the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, provided that the landlord is the owner of the premises and he has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. The explanation thereunder states that for the purpose of clause (e) of the proviso to Section 14(1) "premises let for residential purposes" include any premises which having been let for use as a residence are, without the consent of the landlord, used incidentally for commercial or other purposes. Section 14(1)(e) is further restricted by sub-sections (6) and (7) of Section 14. Sub-se