ivil Appeal No 1842 of 1981
From the Judgment and Order dated3041981 of the Delhi High Court in SAO No 418 of 1978
Mrs Shyamala Pappu HK Puri and SD Lal for the Appellant
Dr YS Chitale SN Kacker Mukul Mudgal and NS Das Bahl for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PATHAK CJ
This is a tenant s appeal arising out of proceedings for her ejectment
The respondent as landlord of the premises let to the appellant filed a petition for her eviction on the ground set forth in section 141h of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 that is to say that the appellant had acquired vacant possession of   a residence after the com mencement of the Act viz her own house D 196 Defence Colony New Delhi and was therefore liable to hand over possession of the rented premises occupied by her to the respondent
It was alleged that the appellant had acquired vacant possession of her house on 20 November 1973 after the premises in suit had been let out to her on April 1971
The appellant denied that she was liable to ejectment
The Assistant Rent Controller Delhi and the Rent Control Tribunal concurrently held that the appellant was owner of house D 196 Defence Colony New Delhi that on 20 November 1973 the previous tenant had vacated the premises and handed over vacant possession and that thereafter she had sold it to one Smt
Leela Wati 750 on 24 November 1973
It was observed that during the period 20 November 1973 to 24 November 1973 it must be taken that she was in possession of alternative accommodation
It was also held concurrently that even though on the date the petition for eviction was filed the house D 196 Defence Colony New Delhi was no longer in the occupation of the appellant it was sufficient for the purpose of section 141h that some time prior to the filing of the eviction petition the appellant had obtained possession of the house
The High Court endorsed the view taken by it earlier in Hem Chand Baid vs Smt
Prem Wati Parekh AIR 1980 Delhi 1 and in the view that the ground for ejectment had been made out when the eviction petition was filed it dismissed the appeal
In this appeal it is urged on behalf of the appellant that before the earlier tenant of tile appellant had vacated the house the appellant had already entered into an agree ment to sell the house to another person and that therefore in the presence of that obligation it was not possible to say that when the house was vacated the appellant was enti tled to enter into and to continue in possession of the house
It is contended before us that before the original tenant vacated the house there was an oral agreement between the appellant and Smt
Leela Wati to sell the house to Smt
Leela Wati and that the agreement was only formalized in a written document on 24 November 1973
It is urged that when the original tenant vacated the house on 20 November 1973 the appellant was under a legal obligation to sell the house to Smt
Leela Wati and that in the circumstances the house cannot be said to constitute alternative accommodation for the purpose of section 141h of the Act
The Rent Control Tribunal has found against the existence of any such oral agreement
Upon that it would seem that it was only after obtaining possession on 20 November 1973 from the original tenant that is four days later that the appellant execut ed an agreement for sale with Smt
Leela Wati
It is appar ent that on 20 November 1973 the appellant came into the house belonging to her and it was available to her for her occupation
The circumstances that she lost possession on the date when the eviction petition was filed does not protect the appellant against section 141h of the Act
In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed but there is no order as to costs
NPV Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The appellant State by virtue of the judgment in Nida marti Maheshkumar vs State of Maharashtra  Ors
   after providing 15 per cent of seats under the All India Quota and under Article 15 of the Constitution for admission to MBBS course laid down the policy of reserva tion of the remaining seats for local students in the city of Bombay and for students from outside Bombay but within the State of Maharashtra in the ratio of 7030
In the writ petitions preferred by the respondents a Single Judge of the High Court took the view that 30 per cent of seats meant for students from outside Bombay should have been filled in before 70 per cent of seats were filled in by local students
The Division Bench dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal by the State
In the Letters Patent Appeals by the respondents it directed creation of five additional seats in each of the three Municipal Medical Colleges and four additional seats in the Government Medical College
Allowing the appeals HELD 1
There was no unreasonableness or impropriety in the State Government s decision to fill up 70 per cent of seats first
The question whether the seats reserved for local students or for those residing outside Bombay should be filled up first was not within the purview or the juris diction of the Court
The High Court was therefore not justified in directing admission on the basis of filling up 30 per cent of seats first
713C D 2
The Additional seats can be created only if the Indian Medical 711 Council approves of it
There is also the question of bear ing the cost of creation of such seats
In the instant case neither the Government nor the Indian Medical Council had consented to such creation
In exceptional circumstances and for ends of justice the court may direct the creation of one or two seats after giving the Indian Medical Council an opportunity of being heard
The High Court therefore should not have directed the creation of so many additional seats
713E G Appropriate directions issued for admission to four seats in the Grant Medical College in Bombay and thirty four seats in the other Bombay available under the All India Quota