M L KHURANA Vs. H C CHOPRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision is directed against the orderdated 12/02/1988, of the Additional Rent Controller, by which he hadallowed the eviction petition brought on the ground of bonafide requirementcovered by Clause (e) of proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of theDelhi Rent Control Act.

(2.) The case set up by the respondent-landlord, in brief, was thatthe premises in question were let out to the petitioner for residentialpurposes and the respondent is the owner-landlord thereof and earlier thelandlord and his family were living in Delhi but they had shifted to Chandigarh and the landlord, who was in service, retired on 31/07/1984 andbefore that date he had given notice to the tenant of his intention to settle inDelhi in his own house. After retirement the landlord had shifted toJabalpur where his sons are having their own business. The five brothersand one sister of the landlord are settled in Delhi. So, the case of the landlord was that he wanted to settle in Delhi in his own house. The petitionwas contested by the tenant pleading that the premises had been let out forresidential-cum-commercial purposes and that the landlord bona fide doesnot require the demised premises at all and has filed this petition with malafide motive to evict the tenant for some ulterior purposes.

(3.) The Additional Rent Controller has given findings after recordingevidence that the premises were let out for residential purposes only and thelandlord is the owner of the said property and the landlord bona fide requires the demised premises as he wants to settle in his own house in Delhi.