Y M SEHGAL Vs. K V SACHDEVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the dismissal of the petition under Section 14(c)(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), owner-petitioner has filed the present petition.

(2.) Mr.Ishwar Sahai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has contended that the Rent Controller has committed a grave irregularity which has manifested into miscarriage of justice by dismissing the petition on the ground that the premises are not required bonafidely by the petitioner. Mr.Sahai has contended that the petitioner was borne at Delhi, got education at Delhi and was having his circle of friends in Delhi. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was employed with All India Radio and as such he was transferred to different places. In the rejoinder the petitioner has mentioned the details of his postings from 1962 to 1966 at Delhi, 1966 to 1968 Radio Kashmir, Srinagar, 1968 to 1978 Chandigarh, 1978 to 1982 All India Radio, Shimla, 1982-1991 Delhi, 1991 to 1993 Bikaner and from 1993 to 30/06/1995 at All India Radio, Chandigarh. The petitioner retired on 30/6/1995. Mr.Sahai has contended that the finding of the Rent Controller that as petitioner lived in the house of his father from 1968 to 1978, his daughters went to school at Chandigarh, they were married at Chandigarh, he was residing in his own house at Chandigarh and the house had sufficient accommodation for the petitioner and his family members, therefore, the need of the petitioner was not bona fide, is perverse. The house at Chandigarh is built up on land measuring 250 sq.yds. whereas the plot area of the house bearing No.79, Anand Lok, New Delhi is of 318 sq.yds. The Rent Controller came to the finding that the premises were not required bonafidely by the petitioner on the ground that un-married daughter of the petitioner also got her education at Chandigarh and got herself admitted in Computer course about two years ago at Chandigarh and the petitioner was well-settled in Chandigarh since 1968.

(3.) Mr.Sahai has further contended that the Rent Controller committed error which is apparent on the record of the case in assuming that Property No.23-A, Kamla Nagar, Delhi was the ancestral home of the petitioner. Rent Controller has returned a finding that when the petitioner was posted in Delhi in 1982, he was residing at premises No.23-A, Kamla Nagar, Delhi and as the petitioner did not shift his family when he was posted at Delhi, that would show that the petitioner had no intention of shifting his family to Delhi. Mr.Sahai has further contended that the finding of the Rent Controller is perverse as a person who was on a job which could be transferable from one station to another, could not have shifted his family during his posting at Delhi from 1982 to 1991 on account of the fact which has been noted by the Rent Controller that the daughters of the petitioner had already been admitted to schools during his first stay in Chandigarh from 1968 to 1978 and he had an accommodation of his father available at Chandigarh and no prudent person, who knows that his job is transferable, would shift his family to another station during the subsistence of his service. Mr.Sahai assailed the finding of the Rent Controller regarding property No.23-A, Kamla Nagar, Delhi, which was sold by the petitioner holding that it showed the intention of the petitioner that petitioner did not want to shift to Delhi at all. This is how the Rent Controller has discussed about the said property |-