V. B. Bansal ( 1 ) THIS order will dispose of this revision petitionfield by Mr. Rajendra Kumar Tandon against the order dated 4 5. 92 of Shris. M. Gupla, Rent Controller, Delhi, thereby dismissing the petition filed bythe petitioner under Section 14 (c) of the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment)Act, 1988 (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the Act. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts leading to the filing of this petition are thatthe ground floor of the premises bearing No. G-47, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi,comprising of two bed-rooms, one drawing room, one dining room, onekitchen, one pantry, two bathrooms-cum-WCs. and open court-yard were Jetout to the respondent by late Shri D. R. Tandon, father of the petitioner, innovember 1963, on payment of monthly rent of Rs. 310. 00. The petitionerclaimed himself to be the owner and landlord of the premises on the basisof a Will dated 6. 2. 1981 of his father. ( 3 ) IT was claimed by the petitioner that his family consisted of himself his wife, one son and a daughter. He was posted as Deputy Chief Engineer (Northern Railways) at Bikaner wherefrom he was transferred to Delhi on 13. 7. 87 and retired on 23. 7. 87. ( 4 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, after his transfer he shifted to thefirst floor of the premises G-47, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi, consisting of twobed rooms, one drawing room, one kitchen, one pantry, one W. C. , onebathroom, one latrine and a verandah. It was claimed by the petitioner thatthe accommodation available with him was not sufficient and, so the petitionwas filed under Section 14 (0 of the Act as the premises in question wererequired by him for his own residence and the residence of the family members dependent upon him. ( 5 ) THE application was contested by the tenant respondent who filedan application for leave to defend supported with an affidavit. It was Interalia pleaded by the respondent that the provisions of Section 14 (C) of theact are not attracted in view of the fact that the petitioner was asking foradditional accommodation while being already in occupation of the entirefirst floor and even the second floor of the premises. It was Interalia pleaded by the respondent that the provisions of Section 14 (C) of theact are not attracted in view of the fact that the petitioner was asking foradditional accommodation while being already in occupation of the entirefirst floor and even the second floor of the premises. It was also pleaded bythe respondent that the petitioner was having another property, i. e. groundfloor house No. E-88, Malcha Marg Chanakaya Puri, New Delhi, havingtwo rooms, drawing-dining unit and the said premises were being let out tovarious tenants for higher rents. The averments made by the respondentwere controverted by the petitioner by way of filing a rejoinder. ( 6 ) THE learned Rent Controller afterhearing Coursel for the partiescame to the conclusion that the remedy of the petitioner lies undersection14 (1) (C) of the Act and not under Section 14 (C) and, thus, dismissed thepetition. ( 7 ) I have heard the petitioner in person and Shri Rajeev Nanda, learned Counsel for the respondent. ( 8 ) THE petitioner has submitted that the learned Rent Controller hascommitted a grave error in placing reliance upon the judgment in casemodan Lal Lamba v. Tarlok Singh Sehgal, (43) (1991) Delhi Law Times 624,inasmuch as this judgement is contrary to a Division Bench Judgment ofthis Court in case Dr. P. P. Kapur v. Union of India and Others, (1990 (2) Delhilawyer 344. He has also submitted that the petitioner before his transferto Delhi was occupying a very big house at Bikaner having more than 10rooms and on transfer to Delhi only 10 days before his retirement had nooption but to shift to the first floor of premises bearing No. G-47, Kirtinagar, News Delhi. He has further submitted that Section 14 (c) of theact is an enabling provision for the benefit of the persons retiring fromgovernment service and it would not make any difference if a portion of thepremises is already in posssession of the owner since he came claim benefitunder this provision, regardless of the fact whether the premises were let outfor residential or residential-cum-commercial purposes. He has furthersubmitted that a provision has been made in the Act to punish the landlordwho after getting the premises vacated under Section 14 (C) of the Act letsout the same to others within a period of three years and in this way theinterest of the tenant is property safeguarded to ensure that the landlorddoes not take undue advantage of this provision. He has further submittedthat the Division Bench Judgment in the case of Dr. P. P. Kapur v. Union ofindia and Others (Supra) has clearly mentioned that it makes no difference asto whether a landlord is in occupation of a portion of the same building orhas been residing in another rented house or is even on road. In this wayhe has submitted that the Rent Controller ought to have placed reliance onthe judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Dr. P. P. Kapury. Unionof India and Others (Supra) and, thus, prayed that the impugned order maybe set aside. ( 9 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent has, on the other hand, submitted that there has been a clear pronouncement of this Court in the caseof Madan Lal Lamba v. Tarlok Singh Sehgal (Supra) to the effect that if theland-lord has been in occupation of an independent dwelling unit in the samepremises, the remedy lies in moving a fresh petition under Section (14) (l) (e)of the Act and not under Section 14 (C ). He has also submitted that thedivision Bench judgment REFERRED TO to by the learned Single Judge and thisdecision in Madan Lal Lamba v. Tarlok Singh Sehgal (Supra) has even beenupheld by the Supreme Court, in asmuchas, the Special Leave Petition No. 3147/93 titled Ramesh Kumar Seth v. Mohan Lal and Others has been dismissedby the Supreme Court on 12. 11. 1992 against the judgment of this Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 801 of 1992 titled Ramesh Kumar Seth v. Mokhanla! Halwai in which reliance was placed on the judgment in Madan Lallamba v. Tarlok Singh Sehgal (Supra ). It has, thus, been submitted thatthe learned Trial Court has correctly concluded that the remedy of thepetitioner lies in moving a petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Act, andthus, prayed that this revision petition may be dismissed. ( 10 ) I have given my thoughtful consideration to these submissionsand have carefully gone through the judgments REFERRED TO to above. ( 10 ) I have given my thoughtful consideration to these submissionsand have carefully gone through the judgments REFERRED TO to above. Inmadan Lal Lamba s (Supra) case it has clearly been held that where a landlord has been in possession of first floor, which is an independent dwellingunit, and claims possession of the ground floor under Sec. 14 (C) of the Act. the petition would not be maintainble on account of his already being inpossession of a unit and the only remedy available to him would be to file apetition under Section 14 (l) (e) of the Act. Reliance has been placed on thecase Narain Khamman v. Parduman Jain (AIR 1985 S. C. 4 ). Reference hasalso been made in this case to the Division Bench Judgment in Dr. P. P. Kapur s case (Supra) and it has been held that the main question for decisionin the said case was about the vires of the provisions contained in Section14 (D) of the Act and prior to that the validity of Section 14 (B), 14 (c) and14 (D)of the Act came up for decision in case B. M. Chanana v. Union ofindia and Others. 1989 (4) Delhi Lawyer, 246. ( 11 ) IT is also pertinent ro note that the judgment in case Madan Lallamba v. Tarlok Singh Sehgal (Supra) has been followed by this Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 575 of 1991 titled Tara Chand v. Santokh Singhas also in Civil Revision Petition No. 24 of 1992 titled Ram Kishankara v. Amaranath. It may also be noted that a petition for eviction undersection 14 (C) of the Act filed by Ramesh Kumar Seth against Makhan Lalhalwia and Others bearing No. 48/92 was dismissed by the Rent Controller on23. 9. 92. Civil Revision Petition No. 801/92 against the said order was dismissed by this Court on 12. 11. 1992 placing reliance upon the judgment ofthis Court in Madan Lal Lamba v. Tarlok Singh Sehgal (Supra) and Specialleave Petition againt this judgment was dismissed by the Supreme Court on12. 11. 1992. 9. 92. Civil Revision Petition No. 801/92 against the said order was dismissed by this Court on 12. 11. 1992 placing reliance upon the judgment ofthis Court in Madan Lal Lamba v. Tarlok Singh Sehgal (Supra) and Specialleave Petition againt this judgment was dismissed by the Supreme Court on12. 11. 1992. ( 12 ) CONSIDERING a!l these facts, I am clearly of the view that the learned Rent Controller has correctly come to the conclusion that the petitioner being already in possession of an india unit in House No. G-47, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi, cannot claim possession cf on the groundfloor of the premises ill occupation of the respondent under Sec. ]4 (c) ofthe Act. I do not find and error in the impugned older and there is no scopefor interference with the same. In these circumstscces, the- revision petition is dismissed.