Mr. P. K. Babri, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against order of the Rentcontrol Tribunal dated 10/07/1987, by which he dismissed the applicationof the tenant-appellant seeking setting aside of the eviction order dated 25/05/1983, made in Rent Control Appeal No. 109/83 by the Rent Controltribunal. ( 2 ) FACTS of the case, in brief, are that Mustaq Ram-petitioner No. 2 (since deceased) was the owner of Property No. 34, Krishna Market, Lajpatnagar-1, New Delhi and the property was being managed by his marrieddaughter Smt. Kanta Rani. Smt. K. anta Rani had let out the premises inquestion comprising of one room, verandah, temporary store, bath and W. C. located on the rear portion of the said property to the appellant-R. David ona monthly rent of Rs. 100. 00per month vide rent note dated 14/11/1967. The eviction petition was brought by Smt. Kanta Rani and Mustaqram against the tenant on the grounds of eviction covered by Clauses (a) and (e) of proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Actpleading that in an earliar case for eviction brought by Smt. Kanta Raniagainst the tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent, the tenant had beengiven the benefit of Section 14 (2) but the tenant has again neither paid nortendered the arrears of rent of the period 1/08/1977, onwards despiteservice of notice of demand dated 19/12/1977 and as he has been inarrears for more than three months consecutively, thus he was not entitled tohave benefit of Section 14 (2) again. In respect of the ground of bona fiderequirement, it was pleaded that Mustaq Ram-petitioner No. 2, being theowner of the property in question, for whose benefit the property was beingheld, had no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation in Delhi andthus, he bona fide requires the demised premises for occupation as residencefor himself and members of his family as he intended to shift to Delhi andsettle in his own house. ( 3 ) THE eviction petition was contested by the tenant. Vide judgmentdated January 22, 1983, the Additional Rent Controller had passed theeviction order on the ground of non-payment of rent but the ground ofbona fide requirement was negatived holding that Mustaq Ram had not beenable to satisfy the Court regarding his intention to shift to Delhi. Mustaqram was based in Hoshiarpur District at all relevant times. Vide judgmentdated January 22, 1983, the Additional Rent Controller had passed theeviction order on the ground of non-payment of rent but the ground ofbona fide requirement was negatived holding that Mustaq Ram had not beenable to satisfy the Court regarding his intention to shift to Delhi. Mustaqram was based in Hoshiarpur District at all relevant times. ( 4 ) THE appeal was brought by the tenant against the eviction orderbefore the Rent Control Tribunal. On 25/05/1983, the tenant-appellantmade a statement admitting that the premises had been let out to him forresidential purposes and the same are bona fide required by Mustaq Ramand his family for their own residence and they have no alternate accommodation and he gave a solemn undertaking to the Court that he shall vacatethe premises within two years. Counsel for the landlords made a statementthat he had no objection to grant of two years time and he withdrew theground of eviction of non-payment of rent. The Rent Control Tribunalvide his judgment dated 25/05/1983, passed the eviction order on theadmission made by the tenant appellant on the ground of eviction covered byclause (e) of proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 i. e. ground of bona fiderequirement of Mustaq Ram and his family, and granted two years time forvacating the premises. ( 5 ) IT is admitted case now that at the time the aforesaid statementwas made by the tenant, Mustaq Ram was already dead. The tenant movedthe petition before the Rent Control Tribunal praying for setting aside of theorder of eviction as Mustaq Ram was already dead when he made theadmission regarding bona fide need of Mustaq Ram and thus, the order wasa nullity. ( 6 ) THE short question which now arises for consideration is whetherthe said order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal could be deemed to benullity or not ? ( 7 ) FROM the record it is clear that Mustaq Ram had set up his needof shifting to Delhi and residing in his own house mentioning that he wouldstart his own business in Delhi and would live with his wife in Delhi. ( 7 ) FROM the record it is clear that Mustaq Ram had set up his needof shifting to Delhi and residing in his own house mentioning that he wouldstart his own business in Delhi and would live with his wife in Delhi. It issettled legal proposition that unless and until there is enough materialavailable on the record, may be in the shape of admission by the tenant, onlythen satisfaction can he arrived at by the Rent Control authorities under thedelhi Rent Control Act with regard to passing of eviction order on any of thegrounds given in Section 14 Sub-section (1 ). ( 8 ) IN Bahadur Singh v. Mani Subrat. 1969 RCR 151, it has been laiddown by the Supreme Court that an eviction order passed on an award without any thing more was nullity as the authorities under the Rent Act have nojurisdiction to pass an order of eviction unless the Rent Control authoritiesare satisfied on material available on the record regarding the existence ofone or other ground of eviction mentioned in the Rent Act. This ratio of lawwas reiterated in Kaushalya Devi and Others v. K. L. Bansal, 1969 Rentcontrol Reporter 703 and Ferozi Lal Jain v. Man Mal and Another, 1970 RCR375. The Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Lal and Another v. Madan Laland Others. 1976 RCR 112. has laid down that even the eviction order could bepassed on admissions appearing in application moved u/order XXIII, Rule3 of the Code of Civil Procedure if from those admissions ingredients of aparticular ground of eviction could be culled out. While discussing the scopeof Section 21 of the Rent Act in Smt. Shrisht Dhawan v, M/s. Shaw Brothers,jt 1991 (5) SC 378, the Supreme Court held that permission granted undersection 21 could be vitiated if there was an error in jurisdictional fact at thetime of grant of permission as valid sanction was sine qua non for Controller sjurisdiction. It was observed that a jurisdictional fact is one on existence ornon-existence of which depends assumption or refusal to assume jurisdictionby a Court or a Tribunal. It was also observed in this judgment that error ofjurisdictional fact renders the order ultra vires and bad. Referring to case ofraza Textiles v. ITO, Rampur, 1973 (1) SCC 633 , it was held that a Court ortribunal cannot confer jurisdiction upon themselves by deciding the jurisdictional fact wrongly. It was also observed in this judgment that error ofjurisdictional fact renders the order ultra vires and bad. Referring to case ofraza Textiles v. ITO, Rampur, 1973 (1) SCC 633 , it was held that a Court ortribunal cannot confer jurisdiction upon themselves by deciding the jurisdictional fact wrongly. ( 9 ) KEEPING in view the aforesaid ratio of law laid down by thesupreme Court, we have to examine the eviction order passed by the Rentcontrol Tribunal keeping in view the factual situation existing at the time theeviction order was passed. It is evident from the record that Mustaq Ram,for whose benefit the property was being held, was intending to shift to Delhito start some business and live in his own house with his wife although hewas based in Hoshiarpur at all relevant times. He had purchased theproperty in Delhi but had not thought of shifting to Delhi at that time andhad allowed the property to be let out by his daughter who was managingthe property. Under Section 14 (l) (c) the bona fide requirement for residencecould be set up for any person for whose benefit the premises are held. so,legally speaking Mustaq Ram was not the landlord but he was the owner andthe property was being held by a landlady, his daughter, for his benefit. So,the eviction order could be obtained for bona fide requirement of Mustaqram. But unfortunately at the time the admission was made by the tenantregarding bona fide requirement of Mustaq Ram, Mustaq Ram was alreadydead. So the satisfaction which had been reached by the Rent Controltribunal in coming to the conclusion regarding existence of the ground ofbona fide requirement stood vitiated as Mustaq Ram was already dead whenthe said order was made. This is a jurisdictional error appearing in the orderof the Rent Control Tribunal which makes the order of the Rent Controltribunal as nullity. ( 10 ) COUNSEL for the respondents has vehemently argued that eventhough Mustaq Ram was dead, still bona fide need of his wife was there andthus, the Rent Control Tribunal could reach the satisfaction that the groundof bona fide requirement was available for the benefit of the wife of Mustaqram. It is difficult to accept this contention that Rent Control Tribunalcould have reached such satisfaction if Rent Control Tribunal was aware thatmustaq Ram was dead. It is difficult to accept this contention that Rent Control Tribunalcould have reached such satisfaction if Rent Control Tribunal was aware thatmustaq Ram was dead. It is a question of fact to be proved, whether wifewould shift to Delhi or not when her husband had already died. There is nosuch finding reached by the Tribunal and thus. this contention is not available to the respondents for upholding the eviction order. ( 11 ) HENCE, I allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order aswell as the eviction order and direct that the appeal and the cross-objections,which were filed before the Rent Control Tribunal against the order of theadditional Rent Controller, stand revived on the file of the Rent Controltribunal. The ground of non-payment of rent which was withdrawn bycounsel for the respondents in view of the solemn undertaking given by thetenant for vacating the premises also has to be restored because that concession was given by Counsel for the respondents subject to the passing of theeviction order on the ground of bona fide requirement on the basis of thesolemn undertaking given by I he tenant. The solemn undertaking given bythe tenant stands vitiated because tenant was not aware on that date themustaq Ram was already dead. The Kent Control Tribunal shall nowproceed to decide the appeal as well as the cross-objections on merits. Theparties are directed to appear before the Rent Control Tribunal for furtherproceedings on 19/04/1993. ( 12 ) OFFICE to see that the Lower Court record as well as record of therent Control Tribunal are received by the Tribunal before that date. Partiesarc, however, left to bear their own costs in this appeal.