Prifam Singh Safeer, J.
(1) This appeal turns on an interpretation of clause (h) of the proviso to subsection (1) of section 14 of Act 59 of 1958 (hereafter called 'the Act' (The judgment then reproduces S. 14(1)(h).
(2) The elemental y principle of statutory interpretation is that the Wordg employed should be given their plain meaning. The statute is to be construed as to be judiciously meaningful in its own context. Sub-section (1) of section 14 starts with the prohibition that no order or decree for recovery of possession of any premises is to be made by any Court or Controller in favor of a landlord against the tenant and then by enumerating under the proviso separate grounds the provision contains in itself the pre-conditions which when satisfied may lead to an order for recovery of premises by the Controller.
(3) The word 'has', the fourth in clause (h), carries in itself the force of the present tense. It has to be interpreted in terms of the words employed in the opening part of the proviso which are to the effect that the Controller may on an application made to him in the prescribed manner make an order for the recovery of the premises and those words mean that on the date of (he application the tenant must be having a residence either because he may have built the same or may have acquired vacant possession thereof or it may have been allotted to him. Either of the three situations must be there on the date of the application, if that is not so, then clause (h) of the proviso to sub section (1) of section 4 of the Act will have no application. Yet in another way, it may be said that as on the date of the application the tenant should be presently having firm legal rights of residence either in respect of a residence built by him or of which he may have acquired vacant possession or of which he may be having the allotment. This clause has been the subject of some controversial interpretations. It is, thereforee, that I have repeated myself and propose to dwell further on a thorough probe into its true meaning.
(4) The Act is a special protective statute. Section 14 begins under the caption 'Protection of tenant against eviction'. In terms of the grounds contained in the proviso that protection becomes unavailable to the tenant and he becomes liable to eviction only in case certain specified circumstances are proved, the legislative intent contained in clause (h) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act is that no tenant should remain entitled to the protection against eviction any longer if he has, as on the date of the application for his eviction, a clear subsisting legal right to occupy and live in any other residential premises which may be available to him either because he may have built the same or may have acquired vacant possession thereof or may have been allotted such residential premises. If as a matter of fact, on the date of an application for eviction the tenant does not have any subsisting legal right to go and reside in a residence either built by him or of which he may have acquired vacant possession or which may have been allotted to him (hen it cannot be said that the landlord has a subsisting cause of action to move the Controller for parsing an order for eviction against him. The 'building','acquisition' or ''allotment' may be either before or after the commencement of the Act, but the 'residence' mentioned in clause (h) must be actually available to the tenant on the date when the action for eviction is initiated against him.
(5) The controversy which has arisen around this clause and around clause (b), (c) and (d) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act is based upon a significant, but, in my respectful view, erroneous concept. Section 14 seen in its entirety is not a punitive provision. The grounds contained in the proviso are not criminal offences and the tenant mentioned therein is not an accused person even more liable to be punished. Take a case where A is the landlord and B is the tenant. B sublets the premises without obtaining consent in writing of the landlord, after the 9th of June, 1952, in Janwy, 1953.He incurs the liability to ejectment in terms of clause (b) under the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 cf ihe Act, After about six months he recovers the premises from fhe sub-tenant, prom that month in 1953 onwards the tenant continues to remain in possession of the entire premises as a tenant and the landlord continues accepting rent. In 1960, the premises are sold out to another person who then becomes the landlord entitled to receive the rent and invoke the. law against the tenant. Can it be said that the landlord in 1960 can file an application and successfully obtain eviction of the tenant on the ground of his having sublet the premises once in 1953 without obtaining the consent in writing of the then landlord There are some cases in which the view taken is that he can do so. That view, however, militates against the intention of the statute. The intention can be best gathered by keeping in view the words used in the opening part of the proviso which are :-
'PROVIDED that the Controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely :-'
An application has to be made in the prescribed manner invoking one or more of the grounds enumerated under the proviso. There should be a subsisting cause of action as on the date of the application so as to be affirmed ultimately through evidence that the breach by the tenant of the obligations cast upon him was persisting on the date of the application itself. A past breach cannot furnish circumstances fur punishing the tenant. He is not a person accused of a crime. These provisions as I have said are not punitive provisions. This aspect of section 14 becomes clear when the provisions contained in sub-sections (2) to (11) of the Act are considered in their total effect. After having enumerated the grounds as from (a) to (1) further restrictions have been imposed against eviction in terms of several subsequent sub-sections contained in section 14. The pre-conditions for allowing eviction are sought to be legislatively fixed with absolute certainty. If a landlord wants to derive aid from the breach of any of the obligations created by the grounds enumerated under the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act then he must make a grievance of it, at once refuse treating the tenant as such and stop accepting the rent and because rent is his only earning out of the tenancy he is expected to initiate an action for the tenants' eviction at the earliest.
(6) The clauses containing the grounds under the proviso to sub section (1) of section 14 of the Act lay down the circumstances which alone, if proved, would entitle a landlord to an order of eviction. Howsoever may be the protection as given to the tenant in terms of clause (h) to the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14, he is not to be allowed to enjoy his residence in the tenancy premises in a situation in which he may be having a present persisting right to go and live just at his own choice in a residence which he may have built or of which he may have acquired vacant possession or which may have beem allotted to him. An order of eviction ran be passed against him if premises for his residence other than the tenancy-premises are as a matter of right available to him. If such a tenant is not moving into such premises presently available to him, the landlord can come forward with an application in the prescribed manner and the Controller can then on coming to the conclusion that the demands of clause (.h) to the proviso to section 14(1) stand satisfied, pass an order of eviction. If the tenant has no such present right as on the date of the application, then his eviction under that clause cannot be sought.
(7) Turning once again to the exact provisions of clause (h), mentioned above, the word 'has' applies with the same force and velocity to the words 'built', 'acquired' vacant possession of 'and' been allotted.' The last words 'a residence' again relate to all the three contingencies. The word 'has' contains in itself the meaning of presently possessing something. The ordinary English dictionaries while giving the meaning of word 'has' refer to the word 'have', which in turn means 'to hold', 'to possess'.
(8) The words 'has built' or 'has acquired''; or 'has been allotted' clearly mean that the tenant has already built, acquired or been allotted the residence to which he can move and that on the date of the application for his eviction his right to reside therein exists. I am supported in this view by the views expressed in Me Connel vs. Wright (1003) 1. ch. 546. It is imperative that the word 'acquired' in the phrase 'acquired vacant possession of' is given the deserved consideration. As far as its true import is concerned the word 'acquired' carries within itself sense of present right to move into the premises of which vacant possession stands acquired.
(9) The meaning of clause (h) may be looked into in another way. It occurs in a provision which provides protection to the tenant against eviction. If a tenant has no present right of moving into a residential accommodation either built by him or which may have been allotted to him then the landlord cannot be held to be having any present right of moving an application against the tenant for his eviction. Any other meaning would defeat the statute in as much as it would cease to be a protective statute. The words, as they stand associated with each other in clause (h) lead to the only condition (hat as on the date of the application the tenant must be possessing a clear right to reside in some other premises as a matter of his own rightful choice either because he may have built such premises or acquired vacant possession thereof or the same may have been allotted to him. To me it appears that if any other interpretation is sought to be placed then that would be making an effort beyond the statute and that would not be permissible in law. The cases referred to before me are :
(10) Naurang Lal v. Suresh Kumar, (1964) 66 P.L.R. 595.. SyamSunder v. Khan Chand (7966) 2 D.L.I. 223, Shri C hand v. Topi Ram (.1971) 63 P.L.R. 915, Gian Singh v. Surinder Lal (1963) 65 P.L.R. 300, Jai Kumar v. Sardar Begum (1968) D 7.
(11) I have read the cases and pondered over the views expressed therein. I am purposefully avoiding discussion because I am firmly of the view that clause (h) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act bears out to me only the interpretation to which I have resorted.
(12) Turning to the facts of this case an application for ejectment of the tenant appellant was filed on 17th September 1959 by respondent Chuni Lal. Is is significant that it has been found by the Rent Control Tribunal in paragraph 4 of the impugned judgment the respondent was not the owner of the premises in dispute, but was himself a tenant thereof; the present appellant being an alleged sub-tenant.
(13) ' he agreed case between the parties is that the premises allotted to the tenant remained in his possession as from 21st of January, 1956, to 5th of February, 1959. The facts proved show that in spite of the provisions contained in clause (h) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 13 of Act 38 of 1952, which were applicable, the present respondent-landlord never moved an application for the ejectment of the tenant during the aforementioned period. This Act came into force in February, 1959. The application for element was not filed till 17th September, 1959. I have seen the original application for ejectment. Non-payment of rent was one of the grounds. That ground as in the eviction application is : '18 (a) Non payment of rent and water charges due from 1st of April, 1957.' The aspect raised by the plea that rent was due only as from 1st of April, 1957 is indeed intriguing. The tenant had been allotted premises as from 21st January, 1957. From that date to the 1st of April, 1957 (for about a year and three months) the landlord received the rent. How can such a landlord turn back and invoke the aid of the Controller for giving him an eviction order against the tenant from whom he has been receiving rent in spite of his having been allotted other residential premises and his not having moved to the same. The landlord waived the breach which was there. The law laid down by a Division Bench in New Garage, Limited v. Khushwant Singh (1951) 53 PLR. 136 cannot be ignored.
(14) I must, however, say that the interpretation of clause (h) as recorded above has not been influenced by this aspect and I have actually checked up the ejectment application after recording the interpretation.
(15) The plea with which this appeal is concerned is contained in the following words used in grounds No, 2 of paragraph 18 of the ejectment application : '18(2) Respondent has acquired vacant possession of Government quarter at Vinay Nagar, New Delhi.' The foregoing was an allegation of fact. Its clear meaning was that as on 15th September, 1959, which is the date on which the application for ejectment seems to have been thumb marked by Chuni Lal applicant (although the filing stamp on the ejectment application bears the date 17th September, 1959) the respondent was alleged to have acquired vacant possession of Government quarter at Vinay Nagar, New Delhi. It was not alleged that he had been allotted any residential premises. The allegation was that he had acquired vacant possession of Government quarter. The words 'has acquired' could not convey that as on the date of the application the respondent had with him the acquired vacant possession of the Government quarter at Vinay Nagar. The fads proved disclose that on the 15th September, 1959, Ved Prakash, respondent to the ejectment application, did not have any acquire! vacant possession of Government quarter at Vinay Nagar. That being an admitted fact I wonder why the Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal did not look through this factual aspect and decide the dispute between the parties on that basis. It has been noticed by both the Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal that after 5fh February, 1959, Ved Prakash did not have in his possession any allotted premises. That being so, the fact of his not having with him any acquired vacant possession of any Government quarter at Vinay Nagar on 15th September, 1959, should have determined as disentitling the respondent to any relief on the ground because of the very scope of the factual plea raised by him through his ejectment application.
(16) I may also say that the allegation to the effect that the ''respondent as acquired at Vinay Nagar, New Delhi' clearly meant that the respondent as on 15th September 1959, was having that accommodation. The Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal having not recorded any finding that on 15th September, 1959, the respondent was having any such acquired vacant possession of Government quarter at Vinay Nagar, New Delhi, should not have allowed ejectment on that score. Looking at the case before me from all aspects and finding that the judgment under appeal sustains eviction only on the basis of the provisions of clause (h) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of Act and finding myself in clear disagreement with the view taken by the Rent Control Tribunal, I hereby accept the appeal and allow the same. The appellant will have his costs incurred before this Court and the Rent Control Tribunal. 89 suit in accordance with some valid law, or on establishment of the existence of public premises, they will have the liberty to apply to trial court for variation of the injunction and permission to proceed and the Court would hear the application on merits and decide it according to law. The interim injunction granted by me leaves the field open for any action against the plaintiffs for use and occupation of the land in dispute which the defendants may or may not take according to a valid law. Revision allowed.