RAJENDER KISHORE AGGARWAL Vs. PAWAN KUMAR BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under section 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, (for short 'the Act'), is directed against an order passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi on 6.5.1988, dismissing the eviction petition filed by the petitioner under the provisions of clause (e) of proviso to section 14 (1) of the Act. The petition was dismissed on the sole ground that the petitioner had not been able to establish his plea of bona fide requirement for the tenancy premises in occupation of the respondent, and as such not entitled to an eviction order, on the ground of personal requirement.

(2.) I have referred to the first order very succinctly tor the reason that the main thrust of the arguments on both sides, during the present hearing, has been with reference to an order recorded on 2.5.1992 by the Additional Rent Controller giving finding in respect to certain additional facts urged and proved by the petitioner, as well as subsequent events pleaded by the respondent.

(3.) Before proceeding further, I would like to put on record that there is no dispute that the other essential ingredients of section 14 (1) (e) of the Act are not established, inasmuch as there is no dispute now being raised about petitioner's being owner/landlord of the tenancy premises, about the tenancy premises being of residential nature, and toe same having been let out for residential purposes. The whole controversy is concentrated on the issue of bona fide personal requirement of the petitioner. It is also noteworthy that the petitioner has taken recourse to the provisions of section 14 (1) (e) not on the plea of insufficiency of accommodation presently available to him, but on the ground of unsuitability, pleading number of factors to support this plea.