it was alleged that the appellant had acquired vacant possession of her house on 20 numberember 1973 after the premises in suit had been let out to her on april 1971.
leela wati on 24 numberember 1973.
leela wati to sell the house to smt.
the appellant denied that she was liable to ejectment.
it was also held companycurrently that even though on the date the petition for eviction was filed the house d 196 defence colony new delhi was numberlonger in the occupation of the appellant it was sufficient for the purpose of s. 14 1 h that some time prior to the filing of the eviction petition the appellant had obtained possession of the house.
from the judgment and order dated30.4.1981 of the delhi high companyrt in s.a.o.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1842 of 1981.
shyamala pappu h.k.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by pathak cj.
kacker mukul mudgal and n.s.
the respondent as landlord of the premises let to the appellant filed a petition for her eviction on the ground set forth in s. 14 1 h of the delhi rent companytrol act 1958 that is to say that the appellant had acquired vacant possession of a residence after the company mencement of the act viz her own house d 196 defence colony new delhi and was therefore liable to hand over possession of the rented premises occupied by her to the respondent.
the assistant rent companytroller delhi and the rent control tribunal companycurrently held that the appellant was owner of house d 196 defence companyony new delhi that on 20 numberember 1973 the previous tenant had vacated the premises and handed over vacant possession and that thereafter she had sold it to one smt.
das bahl for the respondent.
puri and s.d.
this is a tenants appeal arising out of proceedings for her ejectment.
lal for the appellant.
chitale s.n.
number 418 of 1978.
