Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
Sections 14(1)(e) & 25B(8)—Bona fide requirement—Eviction—Dismissal of application seeking leave to defends—Revision—Need of a person to shift his business from a tenanted shop to his own shop is liable to be treated as a bonafide need—A tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord and advise him what he should and should not do—Only the landlord is the best judge of his requirement—Main plank of petitioner’s challenge to the impugned judgment is with regard to assertion in the eviction petition regarding the rent of tenanted premises being enhanced to rupees six thousand per month—Admitted position of both the tenant and the landlord is that last paid rent was rupees one thousand and five hundred per month—Reference to rupees six thousand per month was only in the context of a plea regarding “oral consent” of the tenant to enhance the rent—Tenant has itself denied the said plea in its reply to the leave to defend application—Attempt on part of tenant to question the validity of impugned order and/or the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller by seeking to misinterpret the pleadings, cannot be countenanced—No such plea questioning the maintainability of eviction petition or the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller was taken in the leave to defend application—A party cannot be permitted to blow hot and blow cold in the same breath or approbate and reprobate—No merit found in present petition—Dismissed.
[Paras 16, 17, 19, 20, 22 & 23]