MOTI LAL Vs. RAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had instituted a case (E. No.508/2014) for eviction on 27.08.2012 against the respondent seeking order of eviction on the ground of bona fide need invoking Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 in respect of residential house at ground floor, bearing property No.5384/12, Gali No.6, New Chandrawal, Delhi-110007 (the tenanted premises).

(2.) Having regard to the ground taken, the procedure under Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 was invoked and the additional rent controller (ARC) issued summons to the respondent under Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The respondent, admittedly a tenant in respect of the tenanted premises, filed an application seeking leave to contest. It appears that such contest was allowed and the case was put to trial. The petitioner led evidence by examining his son Tribhovan Singh (PW-1) he deposing on the strength of power of attorney, this in addition to Bishan Datt (PW-2), who is brother of the petitioner. The respondent, on the other hand, examined himself (as RW-1). The ARC, by judgment dated 13.03.2015, however, dismissed the case for eviction on the ground the petitioner had failed to lead cogent evidence to prove the bonafide need for vacant possession of the tenanted premises. It is the said result which is under challenge by the revision petition at hand.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel on both sides and having gone through the record, this court finds the approach of the ARC in the impugned judgment to be wholly unjust, unfair and improper. The reasons are set out hereinafter.