Skip to content


Pushpa Rani Nanda Vs. Khem Raj Loomba - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revision Appeal No. 550 of 1983
Judge
Reported in1986(10)DRJ194
ActsDelhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 14(1)
AppellantPushpa Rani Nanda
RespondentKhem Raj Loomba
Advocates: S.N. Marwah,; M.C. Garg and; V.K. Singh, Advs
Cases ReferredPrem Chand & Anr. vs. Sher Singh
Excerpt:
delhi rent control act - section 14(1)(e)--land lady' petition dismissed by controller on the grounds that she can live comfortably on the first floor and the need of married sons and daughters could not be looked into. in the high court the respondent moved an application to lead additional evidence. the petitioner sought leave to amend the petition to raise the plea that the respondent has acquired a residential flat. amendment was allowed 1981 (2) drj 287 followed. - .....jain, j. (1) this petition 13 directed against the order dated april 29, 1983 whereby the learned rent controller dismissed the application of the petitioner-landlady for eviction of the respondent from the premises in dispute on the ground of personal bonafide requirement. the finding recorded was that there was no satisfactory evidence that the petitioner could not comfortably reside on the first floor. the other finding recorded was that the need of married sons and married daughters of the petitioner could not be looked into. both these findings have been strenuously assailed before me on behalf of the petitioner. (2) the respondent filed an application (cm. 3380/83) under order 41 rule 27, civil procedure code . for permission to lead additional evidence. he wants now to set up a.....
Judgment:

G.C. Jain, J.

(1) This petition 13 directed against the order dated April 29, 1983 whereby the learned Rent Controller dismissed the application of the petitioner-landlady for eviction of the respondent from the premises in dispute on the ground of personal bonafide requirement. The finding recorded was that there was no satisfactory evidence that the petitioner could not comfortably reside on the first floor. The other finding recorded was that the need of married sons and married daughters of the petitioner could not be looked into. Both these findings have been strenuously assailed before me on behalf of the petitioner.

(2) The respondent filed an application (CM. 3380/83) under Order 41 rule 27, Civil Procedure Code . for permission to lead additional evidence. He wants now to set up a case that during the pendency of this revision petition a settlement was arrived at between the parties whereby the petitioner changed the purpose of letting by enhancing the rent.

(3) The petitioner thereafter filed an application (C.M. 972/85) under Order 6 Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code . for permission to amend the eviction petition and raise the plea that the respondent had acquired a residential flat bearing No. 82-B, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi of Delhi Development Authority. This application was opposed.

(4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The amendment has to be allowed because of the decision of the Supreme Court in Prem Chand & Anr. vs. Sher Singh, 1981 (2) DRJ 287 As the respondent is now challenging the letting purpose by way of subsequent events, I think it would be proper if the impugned order was set aside and the Controller was directed to decide the entire case afresh. I, accordingly set aside the impugned order, allow the petitioner to amend the eviction petition and raise the additional ground of eviction under clause (h) of the proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act and remit the case to the learned Additional Rent Controller for deciding the case afresh. The parties are directed to appear before the Controller on April 25, 1985 on which date the petitioner would file the amended eviction petition. Thereafter a short date would be given to the respondent for filing the written statement. Then the case would be decided expeditiously and in any case within six months of the first date. No order as to costs. Trial court record be sent back through special messenger so as to reach before the next date.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //