SATPAL SINGH SARNA Vs. SATYA PRAKASH BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition brought under proviso to Sec. 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the landlords have assailed order dtd. 4/9/2019 of the learned Rent Controller, West District, Delhi whereby the eviction petition under Sec. 14(1)(e) of the Act filed by the petitioners was dismissed after full dress trial. Upon service of notice of these proceedings, the respondent/tenant entered appearance through counsel. I heard learned counsel for both sides.

(2.) Briefly stated, circumstances leading to the present petition are as follows.

(3.) During arguments, learned counsel for petitioners took me through the above records and contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in law. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that the impugned order, on the face of it, suffers the vice of perversity, calling for intervention of this court. Learned counsel for petitioners argued that in order to succeed in this petition, mere desire of the petitioners to return home at this old age in itself is a bona fide requirement. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for petitioners placed reliance on judgment of a coordinate bench of this court in the case of Sarwan Dass Bange vs Ram Prakash, 2010:DHC:515.