SARDAR GURMUKH SINGH Vs. GIAN PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called ,,the Act) is at the instance of a landlord who has been unsuccessful in securing an order of eviction from the Additional Rent Controller against his tenant in respect of a residential flat which had been let out to him. The petition was filed under Section 14 (1)(e) of the Act by the petitioner-landlord on the ground that he required the flat no. 330, Pocket-3,Paschimpuri Residential Scheme, New Delhi under the tenancy of the respondent-tenant(hereinafter to be referred as the ,,tenanted premises) for his residence there along with his family members.

(2.) THE petitioner-landlord had pleaded the relevant facts in support of his claim of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises in para no.18(a) of his eviction petition which is re-produced below verbatim:-

(3.) THE admitted facts which emerge out of the pleadings of the parties before the trial Court, evidence adduced during the trial from both the sides and the submissions made at the bar during the hearing of this petition by the counsel for the parties are that the petitioner- landlord had acquired one freehold property in Mahendra Park, Azadpur comprising of five rooms and there he was living alongwith his family comprising of his wife, two sons and two daughters( during the pendency of this litigation one of the sons had got married and was also blessed with two sons and these facts noticed even by the trial Court were not disputed during the course of hearing of the present petition on behalf of the respondent-tenant). Subsequently, in the year 1994 he was allotted by the Delhi Development Authority an LIG category two rooms flat in Pashchim Puri, which is at a distance of about 12 kilometers from Azadpur, and that flat had been let out to the respondent?tenant in the year 1995. In the year 2001 the petitioner-landlord filed the eviction petition against the respondent-tenant to get back the tenanted premises from him claiming that he required the same, bona fide, for himself and his family members. Detailed averments made by him in his eviction petition have already been re-produced by me.