Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
Sections 14(1)(e) & 25B(8)—Eviction—Bona fide requirement—Dismissal of application seeking leave to defend—Revision—Contention of petitioner/tenant regarding availability of alternate shop for purpose of the business of son of respondent/landlord—Once bona fide requirement of respondent/landlord is established, it is not open to petitioner/tenant to insist that adjacent rented shop on ground floor is more suitable for the requirement of landlord/respondent—Mere inclusion of name/mobile number of the son of respondent/landlord outside any shop being run by respondent/any other family member of respondent, would not negate the bona fide requirement made out by the respondent/landlord—There is no cogent basis or any material on record which lends credence to the petitioner's assertion regarding availability of sufficient alternate accommodation with the respondent, except for bald averments—Petition dismissed.
[Paras 16 to 20]
Sections 14(1)(e) & 25B(8)—Eviction—Bona fide requirement—Dismissal of application seeking leave to defend—Revision—Contention of petitioner/tenant that he cannot be evicted as previous landlord had inducted him in the shop in question in 1989 and it was agreed that he and subsequent owner shall not evict the tenant—Rejected—As such contention of petitioner/tenant is bereft of any document/material in support thereof—Further previous owner could not have bound the subsequent owner of the property with such a restriction when subsequent owner did not authorize him.
[Para 22]
Section 25B(8)—Revision—Jurisdiction—Powers of the High Court under revisional jurisdiction are very restrictive, and should only interfere if there is an error apparent on the face of the record.
[Para 24]