ORDER
Vijender Jain, J.
1. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal of the application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’), present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioners.
2. Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has contended that in view of the plain language of Section 14(1)(h) of the
Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’), it was sufficient that the respondent was allotted a flat by the Society. In support of his contentions, he has cited Ganpat Ram Sharma Vs. Smt.Gayatri Devi 32 (1987) DLT 371, Vardesh Chander Chanana Vs. Prem Nath & Anr. , Baij Nath Vs. Bhagat Singh & anr. , Mr. T N Rai Vs. Rent Control Tribunal 1997 III AD Delhi 579 and Hem Chand Baid Vs. Prem Wati Parekh .
3. I need not go into the question whether Legislature intended that a tenant has acquired vacant possession or has been allotted a residence is sufficient to invoke Section 14(1)(h) of the Act irrespective of the fact
whether possession thereof was taken by the tenant or not. There cannot be two opinion that Court would not go into the question of sufficiency or insufficiency of accommodation while dealing with eviction of a tenant under Section 14(1)(h) of the Act.
4. I am afraid that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be considered in these proceedings. Admittedly an application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC was filed on the basis of respondent not
denying the fact that a flat was allotted by Delhi Government Officers Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited which fact was alleged by the petitioners in the eviction petition. However, when an application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC was filed by the petitioners, the respondent No.1 stated in the reply as under:-
“……..Flat No.B-101 of Category A was never handed over to the respondent by the Society. As a matter of fact the respondent became the member of Delhi Government Officers Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited and in view of his seniority he was entitled to Category B Flat. The society proposed to allot flat
No.B-101 of A Category to the respondent who felt aggrieved of as the flat of A Category was smaller in size than size of B Category. He raised the dispute for arbitration wherein it was held that the respondent was entitled to the flat of B Category and thus the flat No.B-101 of A Category proposed to be allotted to the respondent was never allotted and handed over to the respondent…….”
5. The respondent No.1 has further averred in the reply:-
“……..There were many rounds of litigation between respondent and society as well as other members and society and till date outcome is that one flat of B Category has been ordered to be kept reserved and the DDA has been directed to determine the seniority of the litigating members to whom the flats of B Category can be allotted and handed over………”
6. By an order passed by the High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.1085/1993 the direction was issued to the Delhi Development Authority for reserving a flat for the respondent with further direction to allot the same to respondent subject to decision by Delhi Development Authority as to who was the junior member and what is the effect of the award given by the Arbitrator.
7. It is well settled principle of law that the admission pursuant to the provisions of order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC has to be unequivocal and unambiguous.
8. In view of the fact that the respondent had further stated in reply to Order 12 Rule 6 application that, as a matter of fact, no allotment has been made of a flat for which category respondent was entitled. Admission of the respondent cannot amount to an unequivocal or unambiguous admission. Respondent has yet to be allotted a flat in terms of the order passed by the High Court in the aforesaid writ petition. It cannot be sad that there was any clear-cut admission on the part of the respondent. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that there is no infirmity in the order passed by
the learned Additional Rent Controller, Delhi.
The petition is dismissed accordingly.