SONA DEVI Vs. NATHIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been filed under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ('the Rent Act' in short) by the petitioner-landlady against the order dated 16.08.2003 passed by the Additional Rent Controller('the Controller' in short) dismissing the eviction petition filed by her against the legal heirs of her deceased tenant late Shri Mithan Lal under Section 14-D and 14(1)(e) of the Rent Act of in respect of a part of property bearing no.4837, Laddoo Ghati, Paharganj, Delhi(hereinafter to be referred to as 'the tenanted premises').

(2.) THE petitioner-landlady had filed the eviction petition in the year 1993 against the respondents by pleading the following facts in para no. 18(a) of the eviction petition:-

(3.) BEFORE proceeding further it may be noticed here that the eviction petition was initially filed by the petitioner?landlady under Section 14-D of the Rent Act but subsequently Section 14(1)(e) was also added by seeking amendment in the eviction petition. The respondents had raised an objection that the petition under Section 14- D was not maintainable since the tenanted premises were admittedly let out to the deceased tenant Shri Mithan Lal by the erstwhile owner much prior to its purchase by the petitioner-landlady. This position was not disputed even by the learned counsel for the petitioner- landlady while arguing the present revision petition. So now what is required to be considered is whether the learned Controller had committed any illegality in finding the requirement of the petitioner- landlady in respect of the tenanted premises in occupation of the respondents to be not bona fide, as was contended on behalf of the petitioner-landlady before this Court by her counsel.