payment of penacl licence fee on the ground t.hat he i.s ownin!\ a rnsi~ dential accommodation in his own name m the U mon Terntory of Delhi. It is true that the provisions of s. 14A(l) and the speedy remedy available under s. 25B came to be inserted in the Ddhi Rent Control Act 1958 with effect from December 1, 1975 and naturally. therefore he made an application for eviction on December 19, 1975, but as p~inted out earlier, to a landlord who satisfies the requirements of ~. 14A(l} the cause of action arises or the right to evict h;s tenant accrues 'on or from the date of the order' that ;nay be served upon him whereby he is required to vacate the Government acco.mmudation or in default to incur the liability to pay higher penal licence fee on the ground that he owns a residential accommodation in )11s own name in the Union Territory of Delhi. In the instant case, adm1tted·ly, pursuant to Central Government's decision taken in that behalf on September 9, 1975, a general order, requiring him to vacate the Government accommodation or in default to incur obligation of payment of penal licence fee on the ground that he owns residential accommodation in his own name in the Union Territory of Delhi, was served upon the appellant-landlord on September 30, 1975, which was t much before his retirement, which took place on November 30, 1975. In other words when the cause of action arose _or the right to evict h1' tenant accrued to him the appellant-landlord was very much in service. This is not a case where the right to evict has accrued to a Government servant landlord simultaneously with or after his retirement. It is thus clear that upon service of such general order dated September 30, 1975, upon the appellant-landlord, a right accrued to him under s. 14A of the Act, though, as said earlier, the speedy remedy contemplated under s. 25B became available to him after the Ordinance Np. 24 of 1975 came into force. Apart from service of this general order, it was not disputed before us that by letter dated January 14, 1976 en· hanced licence fee at the market rate, namely, at the rate of Rs. 520/per month in place of Rs. 64/- per month, which was payable by the appellant-landlord to the Government. upto December 3 J, 1975. was actually demanded by the Government from the appellant-landlord and the appellant-landlord has not only incurred this obligation but h.as fulfilled this obligation for a few months by paying the licence fee at the enhanced market rate. The letter dated September 9, 1976, on which strong reliance was placed bv Mr. Makhija, contains rather contradictory averments. It is true that in this letter it has been stated that the allotment of the Go,vernment a'ccommodation in favour of the appellant-landlord shall be deemed to have been cancelled with effect from January 31, 1976, that is to say, after allowing the concessional period of two months admissible to him under the rules after his retirement from Government service on November 30. 1975, but bv the ·same letter the appellant-landlord has been informed that he is liable to pay enhanced market liceuce fee "with effect from Januarv 1, 1976 being a house-owner." in other words, even by this letter dated Septem\ ber 9, 1976 enhanced market licence fee is claimed from the appe!lantlandlon! with effect from January 1, 1976, which could only be on the basis that he was called upon to vacate the premises on or before December 31, 1975 pursuant to the general order dated September 30, 1975 which was served upon him. -It was faintly argued by Mr.
