PUSHPA RANI NANDA Vs. KHEM RAJ LOONBA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition 13 directed against the order dated April 29, 1983 whereby the learned Rent Controller dismissed the application of the petitioner-landlady for eviction of the respondent from the premises in dispute on the ground of personal bonafide requirement. The finding recorded was that there was no satisfactory evidence that the petitioner could not comfortably reside on the first floor. The other finding recorded was that the need of married sons and married daughters of the petitioner could not be looked into. Both these findings have been strenuously assailed before me on behalf of the petitioner.

(2.) The respondent filed an application (CM. 3380/83) under Order 41 rule 27, Civil Procedure Code . for permission to lead additional evidence. He wants now to set up a case that during the pendency of this revision petition a settlement was arrived at between the parties whereby the petitioner changed the purpose of letting by enhancing the rent.

(3.) The petitioner thereafter filed an application (C.M. 972/85) under Order 6 Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code . for permission to amend the eviction petition and raise the plea that the respondent had acquired a residential flat bearing No. 82-B, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi of Delhi Development Authority. This application was opposed.