Summarize the following court judgment. vil Appeal No. 215052 of 1980. From the Judgment and Order dated 28.8.1980 of the Delhi High Court in S.A.O. No. 138 of 1979. R.F. Nariman	 P.H. Parekh and Suhail Dutt for the Appel lants. Ashok Grover for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI	 J. These appeals by special leave are from the judgment and order dated 28th of August	 1980 of the High Court of Delhi. Three appellants	 Jai Bhagwan	 Pearey Lal and Ganpat Ram	 were inducted into premises No. 3240	 Kucha Tara Chand	 Daryaganj	 Delhi by the then land lord	 Shri Dina Nath. The families of the appellants con sisted of about 7 or 8 members per family living in one room each on the ground floor of the said premises. Shri Pearey Lal	 one of the appellants	 had one side store room along with the room and Shri Jai Bhagwan had one small tin shed on the first floor. The appellants were also sharing the ter race. In 1952 the land and building situated at No. A 6;25	 at Krishna Nagar	 Delhi was purchased by one Nathu Ram	 father of the appellant Ganpat Ram and Pearey Lal together with the appellant Jai Bhagwan	 his son in law. The building consist ed of two room	 two kitchens and a Barsati. Three applications were made by the appellants under Order 41 Rule 2 of C.P.C. on or about 4th of August	 1980. The High Court pronounced its judgment without disposing of these applications on or about 27th of August	 1980 and proceeded to hold against the appellants on the basis of an adverse inference that the three appellants had built the house in Krishna Nagar	 whereas a copy of the sale deed 543 would show that the said house was bought and not built that by Nathu Ram and Jai Bhagwan	 and were not by the two of the three appellants. In 1958 Ganpat Ram was allotted a D.D.A. Quarter No. 3 7 at Village Seelampur	 Shahdara. By a notification dated 28th of May	 1966. Village Seelampur	 Shahdara was declared to be an urban area. By Notification dated 27th March	 1979 issued under section 1(2) of the Delhi Rent Act (hereinafter called 'the Act ') this village was subjected to the provisions of the said Act. During 1967 68 one Mrs. Sushila Devi was inducted into the quarter at Seelampur	 consisting of a room	 a kitchen and a bath room. This lady had applied for the allotment of the said quarter in her name sometime in 1974. On 20th of July. the authorities	 in fact	 allotted the said quarter to her. In 1965 70 Ms. Dev Karan and Kul Bhushan being the sons of Pearey Lal had been occu pying the portion of the house at Krishna Nagar together with their family members and grand father	 Nathu Ram. Nathu Ram died in 1969. The other portion was occupied by one Kalu Ram and his family members being brother of Jai BhagWan. There are 18 people residing at the relevant time in the said house. The present landlord	 the respondent herein	 purchased the suit premises from the erstwhile landlord	 Dina Nath on or about 9th April	 1973. On or about 28th of September	 1973	 the present landlord applied to the compe tent authority under the Slum Act for permission to evict the appellants from the said premises. On 12th of December	 1974 the competent authority under the Slum Act granted permission to the landlord to proceed in eviction against the three appellants. On or about the 16th of April	 1975	 the respondent herein filed three eviction suits against the appellants on the grounds contained in section 14(1)(a)	(h) & (j) of the Act. On 31st of January	 1977	 it was held by the Additional Rent Controller	 Delhi that the ground under section 14(1)(h) was made out against all the three appel lants. The ground under section 14(1)(a) was also upheld but the appellants were asked to deposit arrears of rent within a month from the date of the order so as to avail the bene fit of section 15(1) of the Rent Act which the appellants availed of. On or about 24th April	 1979	 the Rent Control Tribunal confirmed the decree in ejectment on appeal under section 14(1)(h) of the Act against the three appellants. On further appeal the High Court construed section 14(1)(h) of the Act to mean that a Building constructed by the tenant which is outside the purview of the Delhi Rent Act on the date of the application for ejectment	 was yet within sec tion 14(1)(h) and the tenant was liable to be ejected. 544 In appeal before us	 it was submitted on behalf of the appellants that in none of the three judgments	 there was any finding as to the suitability of the residence that is built	 allotted or of which the tenant was acquired vacant possession of. None of the courts has re examined the size of the space	 the distance and inconvenience that might be caused	 the number of persons in the tenants ' families or the state of residence built or allotted by or to the ten ants. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the High Court dated 28th August	 1980	 the tenants have come up in appeal. In this case the learned Addl. Rent Controller had passed an order of eviction under clause (h) of section 14(1) of the said Act against all the three appellants as mentioned before. The said decision was upheld by the Tribu nal. It has been held by the courts below that the three tenants have built and acquired vacant possession of the residential house at A 6/25 Krishna Nagar	 Lal Quarter	 Delhi. It was held that Ganpat Ram	 one of the tenants appellants has been allotted residential quarter at 317	 Seelampur III	 Shahdara	 Delhi. Before the High Court the judgments of the Rent Controller as well as the Tribunal were challenged on the grounds	 inter alia	 that none of the three tenants had built or acquired vacant possession of the residential house No. A 6 25	 Krishna Nagar	 near Lal Quar ter	 Delhi. It was further submitted that in any case the respondent landlady was not entitled to claim eviction under clause (h) on the grounds of waiver and laches. Counsel submitted before the High Court that Ganpat Ram had not been allotted the quarter at Seelampur and that in any case he was not in possession of the same. He further submitted that the Act was not applicable to the quarter alleged to have been allotted to Ganpat Ram	 tenant and as such grounds covered by clause (h) were not available to the landlady. Lastly it was submitted that all the three ingredients mentioned in clause (h) of section 14 of the Act were ap plicable to the landlord. Section 14 of the Act is in Chap ter III and controls eviction of the tenants. The said section stipulates that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract	 no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any court or Controller in favour of the landlord against the tenant. Clause (h) deals with the situation where the tenant has	 whether before or after the commence ment of the Act	 built or acquired vacant possession of or has been allotted a residence. The High Court noted the apparent purpose of providing clause (h) of sub section (1) of section 14. The High Court was of the opinion that on account of rapid growth of popu lation of Delhi	 landlords were 545 tempted to terminate the tenancies of the existing tenants and ask for their eviction in order to let out the premises to the pew tenants at high rents. Rent Control Legislation for Delhi and New Delhi was passed for the first time during the second world war and since then there has been Rent Control Legislation applicable to various urban areas in the Union Territory of Delhi. The Rent Control Act was enacted to provide for the control of rents and evictions. The object of clause (h)	 as is apparent	 is not to allow the tenant more than one residence in Delhi. Therefore	 it provided that in case that tenant builds a residence	 the landlord could get his house vacated. It also provided that if the tenant acquires vacant possession of any other resi dence	 he is not protected. Lastly	 it also stipulated that if a residential premises has been allotted to a tenant	 he is not entitled to retain the premises taken on rent by him. In the instant case	 on the three causes on which the land lord can claim eviction were present against the tenant	 the High Court held that these causes are not joint. These need not be conjointly proved or established. These were in the alternative. Therefore	 if the landlord is successful in proving any one of the causes	 he is entitled to an order of eviction against the tenant. Counsel for the appellants sought to urge before the High Court that if a tenant built a house	 he must acquire its vacant possession before he can be evicted under clause (h). Similarly	 it was submitted that if residential accommodation was allotted to a tenant then he must obtain vacant possession of the same. The word 'or ' showed	 according to the High Court	 that these were different circumstances in which tenant was liable to be evicted. These were (i) if the tenant had built a new resi dence	 or (ii) if he had acquired vacant possession of it or (iii) if he had been allotted a residence. The words 'built ' and 'allotted ' do not mean that after building residence or after allotment of a residence	 the tenant must also acquire its possession. If a tenant builds a house and does not occupy it	 he is liable to eviction	 according to the High Court. Similarly	 if a residence is allotted to a tenant	 but he does not occupy it and allows others to occupy the same	 he is not protected	 according to the High Court. The Act provides that building of a house by tenant or allotment of residence to him is a ground of eviction available to the landlord against his tenant. The learned Judge of the High Court was of the view that it is not necessary for a landlord to prove either that the tenant has built and acquired vacant possession of the building or that he has been allotted and taken possession of the allot ted premises. The landlady in the eviction application alleged that the tenants 546 had built and acquired vacant possession of a residential house at A 6 25	 Krishna Nagar	 near Lal Quarter	 Delhi. It was denied by all the tenants but the Controller and the Tribunal on the basis of the evidence on record concluded that the three tenants have built and have also acquired vacant possession of the said residential premises. It was further held that the relatives of the three tenants were in actual physical possession of the said house at Krishna Nagar. It transpired from the record that Dev Karan. Kul Bhushan and Kalu Ram were admittedly related to the three tenants and were in occupation of house at Krishna Nagar as licensee of the three appellants tenants. This is a finding of fact and could not have been challenged in second appeal before the High Court. Learned counsel for the tenants then submitted before the High Court that the landlady was a purchaser of the property from one Dina Nath and she and her vendor had also been aware that the tenants were owners of the house in Krishna Nagar. On account of this knowledge it was argued that the landlady respondent had waived her rights under clause (h) of section 14(1) of the Act. The High Court found that there was no substance in the argument. There was no plea that the landlady ever waived or was guilty of laches. No evidence was led by the parties. The facts were that the respondent landlady purchased this property from Dina Nath on 9th of April	 1973. There was nothing on record to show that Dina Nath was ever aware of the fact about building or acquiring a house at Krishna Nagar by the three tenants. The landlady on the 28th September	 1973 filed applications against the three tenants under section 19 of the Slum Area (Improvement & Clearance) Act	 1956 seeking permission to institute eviction proceedings. The required permission was granted by the competent authority on 12th of December. 1974 and the present eviction application out of which this appeal arises was filed on 16th of April	 1975. Therefore	 there was no question of laches on the part of the landlady. She filed an application for permission after about six months from the date of purchase and she filed an eviction application after about four months from the date of the grant of permission by the Slum authority. The landlady claimed eviction of Ganpat Ram	 appellant tenant	 on another ground also	 namely	 that he has been allotted residential quarter at 317. Seelampur III. Shahda ra. Delhi. This fact was denied by the tenant. A.W. 1 Naresh Chand	 an Official of the D.D.A. brought the official record relating to the allotment of this quarter. It was proved that the said quarter was allotted to him in 1958 and that possession was delivered to him. It was deposed that it was residential in nature. On behalf of the tenants	 it was submitted before the High 547 Court that the same was in possession of Sushila Devi. Sushila Devi had appeared as a witness. She admitted that the said quarter was allotted to the tenant	 Ganpat Ram	 the appellant. After allotment Ganpat Ram was entitled to occupy the allotted accommodation and possession was delivered to him. According to the said witness	 he was not now in possession and somebody else was in possession. Evidence was adduced on behalf of the tenant that he was not in possession and somebody else was in possession. According to the High Court	 if once the condition stipulated in clause (h) was fulfilled	 by the tenant	 he was disentitled to protection under the Act He cannot thereafter claim that he should be protected. We are of the opinion that the High Court was right. It was further alleged that Seelampur area known as Seelampur where the allotted quarter was situated	 was not governed by the Act and therefore ground covered by clause (h) was not available to the landlady. There is no plea and the High Court found taking into consideration all the relevant materials that there was no evidence to show that it was situated within the area which was not governed by the Act. We are in agreement with the learned Judge of the High Court. Before us in appeal	 however	 several points were sought to be urged. It was urged that on a proper construction	 there must be a suitable residence	 that is to say	 a good substitute for the petitioners or the landlord and a reason able substitute. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Goppulal vs Thakurji Shriji Dwarkadheeshji and another	 [ ; There the Court was concerned with the sub letting before the coming into force of the Act and was concerned with section 13(1)(e) of the relevant Act which used the expression "has sublet". The present perfect tense contemplated a completed event connected in some way with the present time. The words took within their sweep any sub letting which was made in the past and had continued up to the present time. Therefore	 this Court held that it did not matter that the sub letting was either before or after the Act came into force. The Delhi High Court in the case of Ved Prakash vs Chunilal	 [1971] Delhi Law Times Vol. 7	 59	 where the expression 'has ' in the Delhi Rent Control Act. 1958 in section 14(1)(h) came up for consideration. It was held that the word 'has in clause (h) carries in itself the force of the present tense. It has therefore to be interpreted in terms of the words employed in the opening part of the proviso which are to the 548 effect that the Controller may on an application made to him in the prescribed manner make an order for the recovery of the premises and those words meant that on the date of the application the tenant must be having a residence either because he might have built the same or might have acquired vacant possession thereof or it might have been allotted to him. Either of the three situations must be there on the date of the application. If that is not so	 then clause (h) of the proviso to sub section (1) of section 14 of the Act would have no application. According to the learned single Judge of the Delhi High Court	 the word 'has ' applied with the same force and veloc ity to the words 'built '	 'acquired vacant possession of ' and 'been allotted '. The last words 'a residence ' again relate to all the three contingencies. The word 'has ' con tains in itself the meaning of presently possessing some thing. The ordinary English dictionaries while giving the meaning of word 'has ' refer to the word 'have '	 which in turn means 'to hold '	 'possess '. The words 'has built ' or 'has acquired ' or 'has been allotted ' clearly mean that the tenant has already built	 acquired or been allotted the residence to which he can move and that on the date of the application for his eviction his right to reside therein exists. It was therefore held that the words as they stood associated with each other in clause (h) lead to the only conclusion that as on the date of the application the tenant must be possessing a clear right to reside in some other premises than the tenancy premises as a matter of his own rightful choice either because he may have built such premises or acquired vacant possession thereof or the same may have been allotted to him. In Smt. Revti Devi vs Kishan Lal	 [1970] Rent Control Reporter Vol. II	 71 Deshpande	 J. of the Delhi High Court had occasion to construe section 14(1)(h) of the Act. The landlord there applied for eviction of his tenant on the ground that the tenant had acquired vacant possession of another residence within the meaning of section 14(1)(h) of the Act. The tenant defended that he had not acquired any residence and that the alleged residence had in fact been acquired by his wife and his sister in law jointly. The Rent Control Tribunal held that the view that under section 14(1)(h) the tenant was liable to be evicted only if he himself had acquired the vacant possession of another resi dence and not by any other member of his family including the wife. The question which came up before the Court for decision was whether the acquisition of a separate residence by the wife of the 549 tenant was sufficient ground for the eviction of the tenant by the landlord under proviso (h) of sub section (1) of section 14: That	 however	 is not the question here. In Naidar Mal vs Ugar Sain Jain and another	 A.I.R. 1966 Punjab 509	 the court had to construe	 inter alia	 section 13(1)(h) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act	 1952. There under section 13(1)(h) of the said Act in order to be liable for eviction	 the tenant must have built a suitable residence. The Court was of the opinion that merely because the tenant had built a house	 would not be a ground for ejectment within the meaning of section 13(1)(h). The words 'suitable residence ' must be read with all the terms namely 'built ' 'acquired vacant possession of ' or 'been allotted '. Although the onus to prove facts within the special knowl edge of a party must be on him	 a landlord bringing a suit for eviction under section 13(1)(h) of the said Act must first allege the existence of grounds entitling him to a judgment. The residence of the tenant must be suitable one. In Siri Chand vs Jot Ram	 (Punjab Law Reporter Vol. LXIII	 1961 at page 915)	 the Punjab High Court had to construe the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act	 1952 and it was held that on the date of the suit for ejectment of the tenant	 in order to succeed	 all that the landlord had to show was that he was the landlord and secondly. 	 that de fendant was his tenant and thirdly the tenant has	 whether before or after the commencement of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act	 either built a suitable residence	 or been allotted a suitable residence. The decision of the Delhi High Court in Govindji Khera vs Padma Bhatia Attorney	 [1972] Rent Control Reporter	 Vol 4. 195 to which our attention was drawn	 does not advance the case any further. Before we discuss the other aspect the result of the several decisions to which reference has been made above	 indicate that the position in law is that the landlord in order to be entitled to evict the tenant must establish one of the alternative facts positively	 either that the tenant has built	 or acquired vacant possession of or has been allotted a residence. It is essential that the ingredients must be pleaded by the landlord who seeks eviction but after the landlord has proved or stated that the tenant has built acquired vacant possession or has been allotted a residence	 whether it is suitable or not	 and whether the same can be really an alternative accommodation for the tenant or not	 are within the special knowledge of the tenant and he must prove and establish those facts. The other aspect is that apart from the question 550 of limitation to which we shall briefly refer is that the landlord must be quick in taking his action after the accru al of the cause of action	 and if by his inaction the tenant allows the premises to go out of his hands then it is the landlord who is to be blamed and not the tenant. In the light of these	 we have now to examine whether the suit in the instant case was barred by the lapse of time. But quite apart from the suit being barred by lapse of time	 this is a beneficial legislation	 beneficial to both the landlord and the tenant. It protects the tenant against unreasonable eviction and exorbitant rent. It also ensures certain limit ed rights to the landlord to recover possession on stated contingencies. The next aspect of the matter is which article of the would be applicable. Reference was made to Article 66 and Article 67 of the (hereinafter called the ) which stipulates that for possession of immovable property the cause of action arises or accrues when the plaintiff has become entitled to possession by reason of any forfeiture or breach of condition. Article 67 stipulates a period of twelve years when the tenancy is determined. Article 113 deals with suit for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in this Schedule. On the facts of this case it is clear that Article 66 would apply because no determination in this case is necessary and that is well settled now. Determination by notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is no longer necessary. It is well settled that time begins to run from the date of the knowledge. See in this connection the decision of Harbans Singh and another vs Custodian of Evacuee Property 'P ' Block and others	 A. I. R. 1970 Delhi 82 though that was a case under a different statute and dealt with a different article. See also Ujagar Singh vs Likha Singh and another	 at page 30. The Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Somdass (deceased). v Rikhu Dev Chela Bawa Har Jagdass Narokari	 Punjab Law Re porter Vol. 85.	 184 held that in a suit for possession under Article 113 of the 	 material date is one on which the right to sue for possession arises. In K.V. Ayyaswami Pathar and another vs M.R. Ry. Manavik rama Zamorin Rajah and others	 A.I.R. 1930 Madras 430	 it was held that where a claim is based upon a forfeiture of a lease by reason of alienation of the demised land and noth ing else	 the article applicable for the purpose of limita tion was clearly Article 143 and the limitation commences to run from the date of the alienation. Here 551 accrual of the right of the landlord is not challenged. The knowledge is indisputably in 1973 looked at from any point of view. There is no question of limitation in this case. In the premises	 we are of the view that the High Court was right and the appeals must fail and are accordingly dismissed with costs. N.P.V. Appeals dis missed.

The respondent purchased the suit premises in April	 1973 and in September	 1973 applied to the Competent Author ity under the Slum Area (Improvement and Clearance) Act	 1956 for permission to evict the appellants who were induct ed into the premises by the erstwhile landlord. The permis sion was granted in December	 1974 and three eviction suits were filed in April	 1975 on the grounds contained in Sec tion 14(1)(a)	 (h) and (j) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. 1958 and the Additional Rent Controller held that the ground under Section 14(1)(h) was made out against all the three appellants. The Rent Control Tribunal confirmed the decree. Before the High Court in revision	 it was submitted that when the landlady purchased the property she and her vendor had also been aware that the tenants owned a house and that on account of this knowledge the respondent had waived her rights under clause (h) of Section 14(1) of the Act	 that if a tenant built a house or has been allotted a residential accommodation	 he must acquire/obtain vacant possession before he was evicted under clause (h)	 and that the area where the allotted quarter was situated was not governed by the Act 540 and	 therefore	 the ground covered by clause (h) was not available to the landlady. The High Court construed Section 14(1)(h) of the Act to mean that a building constructed by the tenant which is outside the purview of the Delhi Rent Control Act on the date of application for ejectment	 was yet within Section 14(1)(h)	 and held that the word 'or ' showed the different circumstances in which a tenant was liable to be evicted	 that it was not necessary for a landlord to prove either that the tenant had built a house and acquired vacant pos session of the building or that he had been allotted and taken possession of the allotted premises	 and that there was no substance in the argument advanced by the tenants that on account of the knowledge of the landlady that the tenants owned a house	 she had waived her rights under clause (h) of Section 14(1) of the Act	 and dismissed the Revision Petitions. In the appeals	 it was submitted that there must be a suitable residence	 one which is a good and a reasonable substitute for the appellants or the landlord before evic tion could be ordered under Section 14(1)(h) of the Act. Dismissing the appeals by special leave	 this Court	 HELD: 1. The Rent Control Act is a beneficial legisla tion to both the landlord and the tenant. It protects the tenant against unreasonable eviction and exorbitant rent. It also ensures certain limited rights to the landlord to recover possession in stated contingencies. [550B C] 2.1 The words 'has built ' or 'has acquired ' or 'has been allotted ' in clause (h) of Section 14(1) clearly mean that the tenant has already built	 acquired or been allotted the residence to which he can move and that on the date of the application for his eviction	 his right to reside therein exists. Therefore	 the High Court was right in holding that the words as they stood associated with each other in clause (h) lead to the only conclusion that as on the date of application the tenant must be possessing a clear right to reside in some other premises than the tenancy premises as a matter of his own rightful choice either because he may have built such premises or acquired vacant possession thereof or the same may have been allotted to him. The words 'built ' and 'allotted ' did not mean that after building a residence or after allotment of a residence the tenant must also acquire its possession. [548D F] 2.2 The landlord	 in order to be entitled to evict the tenant	 must 541 establish one of the alternative facts positively	 either that the tenant has built	 or acquired vacant possession of or has been allotted a residence. It is essential that the three ingredients must be pleaded by the landlord who seeks eviction but after the landlord has proved or stated that the tenant has built	 acquired vacant possession or has been allotted a residence	 whether it is suitable or not and whether the same can be really an alternative accommodation for the tenant or not	 are within the special knowledge of the tenant and he must prove and establish those facts. [549F H] 2.3 The landlord must be quick in taking his action after the accrual of the cause of action	 and if by his inaction	 the tenant allows the premises to go out of his hands then it is the landlord who is to be blamed and not the tenant. [550A B] 2.4 The High Court was right in holding that once the condition stipulated in clause (h) was fulfilled by the tenant	 he was disentitled to protection. He cannot	 there fore	 claim that he should he protected. [547B C] 3.1 Article 66 of the stipulated that for possession of immovable property the cause of action arises or accrues when the plaintiff has become entitled to possession by reason of any forfeiture or breach of condition. [550C D] 3.2 On the facts of this case it is clear that Article 66 would apply in this case because no determination is necessary	 as determination by notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is no longer necessary. [550D E] In the instant case	 the landlady purchased the property on April	 9	 1973. She filed an application for permission after about six months from the date of purchase	 and filed eviction application after about four months from the date of the grant of the permission by the Slum Authority. Time begins to run from the date of the knowledge. Knowledge in this case is indisputably in 1973 looked at from any point of view. There is	 therefore	 no question of limitation in this case. [55OH; 551A] Ved Prakash vs Chunilal	 [1971] Delhi Law Times Vol. 7	 59; Smt Revti Devi vs Kishan Lal	 [1970] Rent Control Re porter Vol. II	 71; Naidar Mal vs Ugar Sain Jain and anoth er. A.I.R. 1966 Punjab 509; Siri Chand vs Jot Ram	 Punjab Law Reporter Vol. LXIII	 1961	 915; Govindji Khera vs Padma Bhatia Attorney	 [1972] Rent Control Repor 542 ter Vol. 4	 195: Harbans Singh and another vs Custodian of Evacuee Property 'P ' Block and others	 A.I.R. 1970 Delhi 82; Ujagar Singh vs Likha Singh and another	 A.I.R. 1941 Allaha bad 28	 30; Somdass (deceased) vs Rikhu Dev Chela Bawa Har Jagdass Narokari	 Punjab Law Reporter Vol. 85	 184 and K.V. Ayyaswami Pathar and another vs M.R. Ry. Manavikrama Zamorin Rajah and others	 A.I.R. 1930 Madras 430	 referred to.