MACHINE TOOLS I PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. LATA MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrived by finding by the Additional Rent Controller in a petition filed by the respondent under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act that the premises were required by the respondent bonafidely, the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Premises were let out on Ist January, 1974. Premises are situated at D-262, Defence Colony, New Delhi. The Additional Rent Controller held that the requirement of the respondent was bonafide. There was no dispute with regard to the ownership of the premises. However, Additional Rent Controller did not agree with the eviction petitioner qua the purpose of letting. The same was decided against the landlady who has filed civil revision No. 470/96 which is also pending in this Court. Therefore, I will not advert to that petition as I am deciding that petition separately.

(3.) Mr. Andley, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the requirement of the respondent was not bona fide. He has further contended that on the basis of material and evidence on record, the Additional Rent Controller could not have held the requirement to be bona fide. What learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in view of the testimony of AW-3 that he was not having any office in Delhi, that he was not maintaining any bank account in Delhi and he was only working as a Consultant, the Finding of the Rent Controller is not sustainable. Mr. Andley has further contended that there was no ration card which was brought on record which could show that the desire of the land lady to shift along with her husband was genuine or bona fide. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Chander Sain Berry Vs. Dr. Avinas 1997 RLR 340 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sarla Ahuja 1998(46) DRJ 29.