SAVITRI VERMA Vs. KAROL BAGH BANGIYA SANSAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order of dismissal of the eviction petition under Section 14-D of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short 'Act'), the petitioner has preferred this revision petition.

(2.) Mr.M L Lonial, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there was no dispute that the petitioner was a widow and the premises in question was a residential house. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has further contended that the finding of the learned Additional Rent Controller that as the petitioner was residing in House No.C-2/10, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, which was taken on rent, and the eviction petition filed by the landlord of the said house having been dismissed, the requirement of the petitioner was not bona fide, is perverse and untenable in law.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr.A Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, has contended that in an eviction petition filed under the special category i.e. under Sections 14-B to 14-D of the Act, the petitioner has to state the requirement bonafidely and the instant case the requirement of the petitioner was not bona fide and has defended the impugned judgment of the Additional Rent Controller.