I.M. SETHI Vs. TRADE LINKS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and proceed to dispose off this revision petition.

(2.) THE petitioner is the landlord in respect of the tenanted premises with the respondent. In the year 1996, the petitioner preferred an eviction petition under Sections 14C (on the ground that he has retired from government service) and 14(1)(e) (on the ground of bona fide requirement of the petitioner and his family) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 (the Act) to seek eviction of the respondent from the tenanted premises. The petitioner had, prior to the filing of the eviction petition against the respondent, also preferred another eviction petition against another tenant, one Ms. Neeru Verma, also on the ground of eviction contained in Section 14C of the Act in respect of portion under her tenancy. During the pendency of the eviction petition against the respondent, the petitioner obtained possession of the premises let out to Ms. Neeru Verma upon succeeding in his petition under Section 14C. Consequently, the eviction petition filed against the respondent was amended in December, 2000. The ground of eviction under Section 14C was, therefore, held to be not available to the petitioner any longer to seek eviction of the respondent herein. The petitioner does not press for eviction of the respondent on the ground of eviction contained on Section 14C of the Act. Therefore, the impugned order needs examination only on the ground of bona fide requirement of the petitioner.

(3.) DURING the pendency of this petition, the Supreme Court has rendered its decision in Satyawati Sharma v. Union of India and Anr. : (2008) 5 SCC 287. On account of the aforesaid decision being rendered, the issue whether the premises was let out for residential -cum -commercial purpose or only for residential purpose has become irrelevant. Even if it is assumed that the purpose of letting was residential -cum -commercial, the petitioner would be entitled to maintain the petition on the ground contained in Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. Consequently, the only aspect on which the impugned order needs to be examined in this revision petition is with regard to the approach of the learned ARC in assessing the bona fide requirement of the petitioner to claim eviction of the respondent from the premises under its tenancy. In this light I proceed to narrate a few background facts.