Goswamy,j. ( 1 ) THIS second appeal by the tenant is directed against theorder dated 24. 10. 1986 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi wereby hisfirst appeal against the order of eviction was dismissed. ( 2 ) THE respondent filed an eviction petition under clauses (h) and (j)proviso (1) to section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. In paragraph 18 (a)of the petition, it was alleged as follows :- " 18 (a) (1) The respondent built and acquired vacant possession ofa double storeyed house No. BH/381, Purbi Shalimar Bagh, Ringroad, New Delhi. As such the respondent is liable to be evictedunder clause (h) of section 14 (1) of the Delhi Control Act. " ( 3 ) IT is not necessary to reproduce the pleadings regarding clause (j)inasmuch as the case based on the said clause was found against the landlordand has not been challenged either before the Tribunal or before this Court. The eviction order was passed under clause (h) of section 14 (1) of the Act. Inthe original written statement as also in the amended written statement initiallyin reply to para 18 of the petition, it was denied that the appellant-tenant hadacquired vacant possession of a double storeyed house as alleged but in thelater paragraph i. e. paragraph 19 it was admitted that the house mentioned bythe landlord in his eviction petition was acquired bat it was pleaded thatthe same was not suitable for residence of the tenant. It was further pleadedthat clause (h) was not applicable inasmuch as the premises in dispute were letto the tenant for residence-cum-commercial purpose and the tenant was carrying on his tailoring work also in the same premises. ( 4 ) ON perusal of the entire evidence on record, the Rent Controller as alsothe Rent Control Tribunal have recorded the concurrent findings to the effectthat the premises were let for residential purpose only and no commercial activitywas being carried on. It has also been found that the appellant had acquired alternate house which was much biggar than the premises in question. Ordinarily, theappeal should have been dismissed on the short ground that it does not raiseany question of law more so a substantial question of law but, I have heard thelearned counsel for the parties and have also been taken through the pleadingsand the evidence on record. Ordinarily, theappeal should have been dismissed on the short ground that it does not raiseany question of law more so a substantial question of law but, I have heard thelearned counsel for the parties and have also been taken through the pleadingsand the evidence on record. ( 5 ) IT is an admitted fact that the appellant has acquired an alternatehouse after 1980 i. e. after the present landlord and purchased the property inquestion. It is also an admitted fact that the appellant is a tailor by professionand he is carrying on his tailoring work in a shop which is closed to the premisesin question. He has admitted that he has employed three or four tailors inthat shop and works along with those tailors in the shop. However, he hastried to set up a case that he also carries on tailoring work in the premises inquestion. The premises in question consists of only one room and one kitchen. The room measures 13 x9 . There are five members of the appellant s family. The appellant has also a fridge, television and other furniture. It is impossibleto believe that in spite of there being five members and so many pieces offurniture, the appellant was also carrying on his tailoring work in the said house. His case in his statement is that he was carrying on the tailoring work with theassistance of his wife in the premises in question. Except the bald statementsof few associates of the appellant, there is no independent witness who hascome to depose to that effect. The learned counsel for the appellant hasplaced strong reliance of the alleged rent note having been executed by oneof the previous landlords to the effect that the premises were let for residenceand for tailoring work. The said rent-note is Ex. AW5/ri. I have lookedinto the said document. The document is a typed paper and is not stamped. Obviously the appellant seems to have managed with one of the previouslandlords to procure the document. If such a document was in existence theappellant would have said so in its original written statement or at least inthe amended written statement but surprisingly both the written statementsare silent at to the existance of any rent-note. In fact in paragraph 14 of thepetition it was alleged that the year of tenancy is not known but the appellantwas a tenant on monthly basis. In fact in paragraph 14 of thepetition it was alleged that the year of tenancy is not known but the appellantwas a tenant on monthly basis. This allegation was admitted and it was notsaid that any rent-note was executed at the time when the appellant wasinducted into the premises. In the circumstances, the Rent Controller as alsothe Rent Control Tribunal were right in rejecting this document. There isno other document on record to indicate that any commercial activity wasbeing carried on in the premises in question. ( 6 ) THE respondents filed an application in this Court to the effect thatthe appellant had already shifted from the premises in dispute and was keepingvarious people in occupation of the room. The learned counsel for theappellant states that the children of the appellant have shifted to the newlyacquired house but the appellant continues to reside in the said premises. Itis against impossible to believe that the children have shifted but the appellantand his wife have stayed back. There is no doubt that the appellant hadacquired spacious premises and at least a part of his family is residing inthese premises and are available to the appellant for his residence. In thesecircumstances, clause (h) is clearly attracted and no fault can be found withthe findings recorded by the Rent Controller as also by the Rent Controltribunal. ( 7 ) FOR the reasons recorded above, I do not find any merit in this appealwhich is hereby dismissed. The respondent will be entitled to his costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 300. 00. The counsel for the appellant states that some timeshould be allowed to the appellant to hand over vacant possession of thepremises in dispute. The counsel for the respondent states that he has noobjection to the grant of one or two months provided the appellant pays thearrears of rent which are due from June, 1986. In case the arrears of rent arepaid within one week from to-day, the appellant will have two month s timeto hand over vacant possession of the premises in dispute, failing which theorder will be executable after one week from to-day.