MOHD. JAMAL MUSTAFA Vs. SABIRA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition u/s 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short "the Act") against the order dated 04.06.2011 passed by the Ld. Rent Controller, Saket Court, Delhi, whereby the leave to defend application filed by the respondent tenant, was allowed. The facts that lead to the passing of the impugned order have been enumerated as under. The respondent was the tenant in two bedrooms, one drawing -cum -dining and verandah, kitchen, latrine and bathroom forming part of property bearing no 352 -B, Ground Floor, Gali No. 1, Batla House, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "tenanted premises"). The petitioner landlord along with his family was residing at village Walidpur, Dist. Mau, Uttar Pradesh, in a property owned by his father and was working for gains there. In the year 2009, the petitioner left his job and wanted to shift back to Delhi permanently. Consequentially, he requested the respondent to vacate and handover the peaceful possession of the tenanted premises to him as he had no other alternative accommodation in Delhi. The respondent refused to vacate the tenanted premises, as a result of which, the petitioner filed an eviction petition against him u/s 14(1) (e) of the Act. The petitioner in the petition submitted that the property was required bonafide by him and his family for residential purposes and that he had no other alternative accommodation in Delhi. The leave to defend application filed by the respondent was eventually allowed by the Rent Controller vide order dated 04.06.2011. This order is under challenge in the present revision petition.

(2.) BEFORE proceeding to examine the submissions made by the counsels, it is vital to note that the powers of revision of this court u/s 25B (8) are not as wide as that of an appellate court. If it is found that the impugned order is according to law and does not suffer from a jurisdictional error, then this court has no power to interfere. Only when there is a gross miscarriage of justice caused or where the conclusion arrived at by the Rent Controller, based on the material provided is not possible, that this Court interferes. Keeping this aspect in mind, I have examined the impugned order and the arguments put forth by the learned counsels.

(3.) IT is settled proposition of law that the landlord is the best judge of his own requirements and neither the court nor the tenant can dictate terms to him. It has been held so in a plethora of cases decided by both the Supreme as well as the High Courts. Having said which, it cannot be said that everything the landlord states should be taken to be the gospel truth. The object behind Rent laws is to strike a balance between the rights of the tenants and the landlords. In the case of "Liaq Ahmed v. Habeeb -Ur -Rehman, : (2000) 5 SCC 708", the Supreme Court elaborated the object behind rent laws as under: -