V RAJASWARI Vs. BOMBAY TYRES INTL LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is rather an unfortunate case. Though the appellant-landlady came forward with an application under Section 14 (l) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 she could not succeed on that plea. The reason is; the courts have found that her entitlement is not activated by bona fides. However, pending the revision before the High court Section 14-D came to be introduced. That section reads as under:

(2.) A review was filed before the High court praying that in view of this section the landlady being a widow would be entitled to succeed in the eviction application. The learned Judge of the High court was of the view that it was not open to him to take subsequent change in legislation. It is under these circumstances, the present Civil has come to be preferred.

(3.) Though the initial part of the argument centred round on the bona fide need of the landlady but when we pointed out that on factual findings, it may not be possible for this court to interfere under Article 136, the arguments shifted to the ground resting on Section 14-D. Hence, the landlady prays that notwithstanding the petition has been filed under Section 14-D which is pending for adjudication before the Rent Controller, if on the facts the requirement of the section is satisfied, she would be entitled to eviction. The respondent argues: The prayer of the landlady is that once a factual finding has been rendered that there is no need for bona fide residence, that would operate against her. Even with regard to the claim under Section 14-D besides the landlady was demanding higher rent as is evident from her writing letters repeatedly for enhancement of rent. In any event, an application under Section 14-D is pending. That may be tried instead of this court dealing with this aspect.