VINOD CHANDER Vs. ISHWAR DAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . CIVIL REVISION NO.1022/2003 SEEKS TO CHALLENGE THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.8.2003 OF THE ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER, DELHI IN E-17/2003 WHEREBY THE ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER HAS DISMISSED THE PETITION UNDER SECTION 14(1)(E) OF THE DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT') HOLDING THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 14(1)(E) WERE NOT BONA FIDE.

(2.) BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS NOTED BY THE ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER ARE AS FOLLOWS:

(3.) IT IS CONTENDED BY COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER THAT THE PETITIONER IS LIVING ALONG WITH HIS WIFE AND TWO GROWN UP SONS AGED 24 AND 26 YEARS RESPECTIVELY WHO ARE DEPENDENT ON HIM FOR THEIR RESIDENCE IN A TWO ROOM TENEMENT BUILT ON THE ROOF OF THE SUIT PREMISES OUT OF WHICH ONE IS PUCCA WHILE THE OTHER IS AN ASBESTOS SHED. COUNSEL CONTENDS THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF THE LANDLORD IS OF AN URGENT NATURE AND IS BONA FIDE INASMUCH AS THE PETITIONERS AND THE FAMILY HAVE BEEN LIVING IN SUCH CONDITIONS SINCE 1981 WHEN THE PETITIONER WAS EVICTED FROM THE PREMISES WHICH WAS EARLIER IN HIS TENANCY. SHE ALSO SUBMITS THAT THE ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER WENT WRONG IN RETURNING A FINDING THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF THE PETITIONER WAS NOT BONA FIDE AS THE CONTROLLER BASED HIS ORDER PRIMARILY ON THE GROUND THAT THE PREMISES IN QUESTION WERE LET OUT ON BEING VACATED BY THE EARLIER TENANT WHILE THE PRESENT PETITIONER WAS LIVING IN A RENTED ACCOMMODATION. AS SUCH, HAD THE REQUIREMENT BEEN BONA FIDE ON THE GROUND THAT THE PETITIONER IS REQUIRED TO VACATE HIS TENANTED PREMISES HE WOULD NOT HAVE CREATED THE SUBSEQUENT TENANCY WITH THE PRESENT TENANT. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT THE CONTROLLER LOST SIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE EVICTION PETITION WAS FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONER BY HIS LANDLADY AFTER CREATION OF THE TENANCY WHICH WAS NOT ENVISAGED BY THE PETITIONER AND IN THE EVENT THE PETITIONER HAD NOT BEEN SOUGHT TO BE EVICTED HE WOULD NOT HAVE FILED THE PETITIONER FOR EVICTION UNDER SECTION 14(1)(E) OF THE ACT AGAINST THE PRESENT TENANT.