Yogeshwar Dayal, J.
(1) This second appeal is directed against the concurrent judgments of the learned IIIrd Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, and the Rent Control TribUnal.Delhi posing an order of eviction against the applicants/tenant under the provisions of clause (h) to the proviso to subsection (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
(2) The landlady, Smt. Ranjit Kaur, had filed an eviction application against Shari V.K. Malhotra (residing in America) and Shri Pardeep Kumar Malhotra, brother of Shri V.K. Malhotra, respondent No. I under the provisions of clauses (b),(d) and (h) of sub-section (l) of section 14 of the Act.
(3) The case of the landlady was that the ground floor of property No. A-172, defense Colony, New Delhi was let out to Shri V. K. Malhotra and the tenant has sub-let or otherwise parted with possession of the whole of the premises without written consent to his brother, respondent No. 2. The eviction was also claimed on the ground that neither the tenant nor any dependant member of his family ii residing in the suit premises for a period of six months immediately before the filing of the petition and that the tenant, respondent No. I has built, acquired/allotted vacant possession of residence II-G, Extention Kirti Nagar, New Delhi.
(4)the tenant filed the written statement and pleaded that there was no subletting, assigning or parting with possession ; that the premises were occupied by the mother and younger brother, who are family members of the tenant and, thereforee, there is no sub-letting, assigning or parting with possession and similarly it cannot he said that neither the tenant nor any member of his family is residing in the premises for a period of six months before the filing of the petition.
(5) Regarding the third allegation that respondent No. I, has built/ acquired or been allotted premises, it was alleged that he is not the owner of home No. I I-G, Extension Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. It was not alleged that It was owned by his wife.
(6) The learned Additional Rent Controller held that the brother and mother of the appellant are staying in the disputed house and they are his family members and thereforee, there is no question of the applicability of clause (b) or clause (d) to the first proviso to sub-section (i) of Section 14 of the Act. The learned Additional Rent Controller, however, took the view that the appellant has acquired possession of premises No.1l.G, Extension Kirti Nagar, New Delhi, trough his wife, and held that it fulfilll the requirement of clause (b) to the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. For this finding the learned Additional Rent Controller relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter Prem Chand and another v. Sher Singh 1981 (2) Drj 287 delivered through the Hon' bie the Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, A.P. Sen, J. and Baharul Islam, J. and passed an order for ejectment under clause (h) to the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act.
(7) The appellant went up in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal also felt that it was bound by the decision of the aforesaid case of the Supreme Court and the facts of the present case are similar to the facts of that case.
(8) Mr. Vinod Tvagi, learned counsel for the appellants/tenant in the second appeal, submitted that the decision of the Supreme Court in the afore- said case is not correct. It is not based on any analysis of clause (h) to the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act and it is mere an obiter dictum.
(9) I am afraid the Supreme Court was very much conscious of the provisions of the aforesaid clause (h) to the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act and the judgment of the Supreme Court is based while applying that provision. It is not an obiter as I would like to quote the entire Judgment of that case which reads :
'Y.V.Chandrachud, C./.-The respondent-tenant is out of possession since October 9, 1976. He was dispossessed during the pendency of the appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal. The respondent's son is a business executive, who was at one time, allotted a flat by his employers. On December 12, 1980 the respondent's wife purchased a flat at Saket from the Delhi Development Authority, at a cost of about Rs. 1.20.000.00 . The flat is available to the respondent though his Explanationn is that it has been let out by his wife to their son. The respondent has now no case to be put back in possession of the flat in dispute. We had allowed the appellants to amend their application for possession by pleading that the respondent has acquired possession of a vacant residence within the meaning of Section 14(l)(h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 59 of 1958. The respondent has filed his reply to the amended application. Having considered the averments of the parties on the point at issue we are satisfied that the respondent has through his wife acquired vacant possession of a residence in Delhi. The application of the appellants for possession of the flat is thereforee allowed and the judgment of the High Court is set aside. There will no order as to costs throughout.'
(10) Mr. Vinod Tyagi, how(r)ver. submitted that there is a contrary view of this court by Deshpandhe. J. (as his Lordship then was) reported as Smt. Revti Devi v. Kishan Lal 1970 Rcj 417.
(11) It is true that the judgment of Deshpandhe, J. appears to be in conflict with the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court. After the decision of the Supreme Court...this court is bound by the jugment' and it does not matter if a contrary view was taken by this Court. This Court cannot say that there is no analysis of the section or that the judgment is not correct. It is not the province of any court, subordinate to the Supreme Court, to sit in judgment over the judgment of the Supreme Court of this country. It is only the privilege of the Bar to criticise any judgment, may be of the Supreme Court at their sweet will.
(12) The facts of the present case are identical to the facts of the case before the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of Smt. Revti Devi (supra).
(13) It is also in evidence that the ground floor and first floor of the premises. 11-G Extension Kirti Nagar, New Delhi, have been let out and the second floor is lying vacant.
(14) The appeal consequently fails and is dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs of the present proceedings.