TARACHAND Vs. BISHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (ORAL)

(2.) THIS is a revision against the order of eviction passed under clause (e) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of Delhi Rent Control Act on the ground of personal bonafide requirement of the landlord, respondent herein. The revision was admitted on 5.2.1992 and has come up for final hearing after the Court had ordered expeditious hearing. The petitioner through his counsel has placed on record a certified copy of the sale deed in respect of the premises in dispute. The Municipal numbers given in the sale deed represent the property, a portion whereof is in occupation of the petitioner which is the premises in dispute. The fact of sale was duly conveyed by counsel for petitioner to Mr J.R. Tandon, counsel for. the respondent, who was appearing earlier and he was given time on 16.9.1996 to ascertain the facts. Counsel for the respondent did not appear on 24.9.1996 nor has he appeared today. In the light of the development mentioned above whereby the property in dispute no longer belongs to the respondent, who had obtained an eviction order on the ground of his personal bonafide requirement under clause (e) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of Delhi Rent Control Act. Therefore, the need for the premises in dispute of the said respondent/landlord for the premises in dispute cannot be deemed to subsist. The cause of action for, passing the eviction order was the personal bonafide requirement of the premises in dispute of the landlord who was the owner of the premises. -Since that person is no longer the owner of the property in dispute, the bonafide requirement as contemplated under clause (e) of the proviso to Section 14(1) cannot be said to subsist as during the pendency of these proceedings, he had ceased to be the owner of the premises in dispute. In that view of the matter, the impugned order of eviction dated 14.8.1991 is set aside with no order as to costs. THIS revision is disposed of in the above terms.