CHANDER MOHAN SAINI Vs. UJJAGAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller, the landlord has filed the present revision petition. It has been contended by Mr. Bhargava that the Additional Rent Controller has not taken into consideration Ex. RW 1/6, filed by the respondent which was the order of the Rent Control Tribunal in previously instituted eviction petition holding that the purpose of letting was residential, which was however dismissed. That finding was never challenged by the respondent. That material evidence which was by before the respondent itself was not taken into consideration by the Additional Rent Controller.

(2.) I have perused through Ex.Rw 1/6. In paragraph 7 of the said certified copy of the judgment of the Rent Control Tribunal it was recorded that the purpose of letting to be residential was not disputed. The relevant material was not taken into consideration by the Additional Rent Controller and, therefore, the Additional Rent Controller has committed a material irregularity and there is an error apparent on the face of the record. On this score, I set aside the finding of the Additional Rent Controller with regard to purpose of letting. Even otherwise, in view of the fact that the premises were used for residential purpose by the respondent, the carrying on of the work of the carpentry may be an incidental purpose that will not change the nature and the purpose of letting which was residential.

(3.) The Additional Rent Controller also fell in error while holding that the premises were not bona fidely required by the petitioner.