RAMNI SEHGAL Vs. A M SIDDIQUI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Civil Revision Petition was filed in the year 1995 on account of dismissal of the eviction petition by the Additional Rent Controller under Section 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

(2.) It is contended by Mr. Goswami learned Counsel for the petitioner that the findings of the Additional Rent Controller were perverse. The respondent-tenant denied the ownership as well as the purpose of letting. According to him, the petitioner was not the owner and the premises were let out for composite purposes. Additional Rent Controller did not agree with the respondent-tenant here in on the basis of the material placed on record and held that the petitioner was the owner and the purpose of letting was residential.

(3.) To my mind, there was no justification for the Additional Rent Controller to use the words as to "whatshe-landlady meant about her relations with her father-in-law when she stated that it was not cordial. "It is a common knowledge that relations between in-laws and daughter-in-law, at some point of time, may not be cordial. Those relations may at later stages become cordial or it may be very un-pleasant also. No hard and fast stand can be taken on such emotive matters. Therefore, the observations of the Additional Rent Controller that the petitioner separated from her father-in-law after her marriage in November, 1985 and shifted to a rented house at E-82, Masjid Moth, and why and how she re-joined with her father-in-law in l987can not be believed.The Additional RentController ought not to have outrightly rejected the testimony of the petitioner that after some time she separated from her father-in-law, it is possibly may be wisdom dawned on the young couple and they went back to the father-in-law. The approach of Additional Rent Controller in this case, particularly, the following observations in para 16 of the impugned judgment were totally unwarranted: