ISHAQ Vs. RAIS AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, (for short 'the Act'), the contentions raised are that the letting purpose has not been proved to be residential, and further that bona fide requirement of respondent No.l (petition No. I in the eviction petition), has been erroneously assessed and taken into consideration.

(2.) I have perused the relevant portions of the impugned order where findings are recorded. There is an admission of the petitioner to the effect that the premises were taken on rent originally for residential purposes. All that he added was that the wife of the original tenant used to stitch clothes on sewing machine. The Rent Controller has rightly held that stitching of clothes by the house-wife, even on the charge basis, does not amount to commercial activity, when the premises are admittedly of residential nature and let out for being used as residence, and where the family of the tenant has been residing. There is thus no merit in this contention.

(3.) Similarly, so far as the question of bonafide requirement is concerned, it is specifically pleaded that respondent No. I had no accommodation of his own, and he was being accommodated by respondent No. 2 in one room. When there are co- owners or joint owners of the property, the requirement of one owner/landlord can certainly be taken into consideration; which in this case has been established to the saatisfaction of the Rent Controller. In a revision petition filed under Section 25- B(8) of the Act, this Court does not have to appreciate evidence on facts unless there is apparent and gross error on face of the record, and an interference is called for. No such case is made out here.