THAKUR DASS GULATI Vs. FAQIR CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is landlord's revision petition filed under section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control. Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act'), feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi on 29th October 1983, dismissing the eviction petition filed under section 14(l)(c) read with section 25-B of the Act, on the plea of personal requirement.

(2.) The Additional Rent Controller did not find the plea of bona fide requirement for personal residence of the landlord and his family established on record, and thus dismissed the eviction petition. Mr. Makhija, during the course of arguments, has pointed out that one of the factors which the Additional Rent Controller took into consideration while recording a finding that the petitioner had failed to prove that there was any bona fide requirement for the tenancy premises, was that he had since shifted to Gurgaon. Learned counsel has urged that there is total misappreciation of evidence because the Additional Rent Controller did not read the statement of the petitioner in this respectfully but in piecemeal and held against him whereas the petitioner had categorically stated that he had been constrained to take a house on rent in Gurgaon for the reason that he could not afford the heavy rents prevailing in Delhi, and- that he had every intention to live in Delhi, and proposes to move back to Delhi as soon as the tenancy premises get vacated. Mr. Makhija has contended that this itself is a ground calling for interference by this Court because misconstruction or misinterpretation of the evidence on record is a point that can certainly be examined in this revision petition filed under section 25-B(8) of the Act.

(3.) The learned counsel has taken me through the statement of the petitioner and I find that factually it is correct that the Additional Rent Controller has taken into consideration only a part of the statement of the petitioner and did not advert or comment upon his explanation which he had given in the same breath while stating that he was at that point of time living in Gurgaon. Petitioner's counsel placed reliance on ajudgment of this Court reported as 1988(2) R.C.R. 398, Smt. Drashan Garg v. Sri Kishan Das, wherein it has been held that misinterpretation of evidence or a finding given by the Controller by excluding some important piece of evidence was an infirmity which vitiates the finding which can be set aside by this Court in exercise of power of revision conferred by section 25-B(8) of the Act. This proposition was laid down by the learned Single Judge after taking note of certain Supreme Court judgments.