(1.) THIS REVISION PETITION IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.05.2002 OF THE ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER, DELHI IN E-133/2000 WHEREBY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER WHILE ADJUDICATING UPON AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 14D OF THE DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT HAS DECLINED LEAVE TO DEFEND.
(2.) BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS SUBMITTED BY THE LANDLADY IN HER PETITION UNDER SECTION 14D OF THE DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT ARE AS FOLLOWS:
(3.) IT IS CONTENDED BY COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER THAT THE ROOM IN QUESTION MEASURES 14' X 10' AND IS NOT CAPABLE OF BEING USED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES. HE SUBMITS THAT THERE IS YET ANOTHER ROOM MEASURING 9'6" X 10' WITH THE SON OF THE LANDLADY AND HE IS RUNNING A SHOP THEREIN. THEREFORE, IF THE NEEDS OF THE LANDLADY WERE GENUINE THE AFORESAID ROOM WITH THE SON OF THE LANDLADY COULD HAVE BEEN CONVERTED TO ACCOMMODATE THE FAMILY DEPENDENT UPON HER. HE ALSO CONTENDS THAT THE ROOM IN QUESTION WAS SPECIFICALLY LET OUT FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES AND, THEREFORE, GREATER BURDEN LIES ON THE LANDLADY TO SHOW THAT THE REQUIREMENT IS NOT FANCIFUL BUT IS IN FACT BONA FIDE. HE REFERS TO A JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT IN NIRANJAN LAL SHARMA (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS L.RS. VS. VED KUMARI & ANOTHER, 2002(2) RCR 293 AS ALSO JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN INDERJEET KAUR VS. NIRPAL SINGH, (2001) 1 SCC 706.