Sangeeta Chandra, J. - (1.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, who has tediously taken this Court through the history of the house in question and its ownership by Smt. Satya Bagga and thereafter by Sri Sachdeva and the purchase of the house in question by the father of the respondents on 24.2.1979, when the petitioner was sitting tenant therein.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was given to the petitioner on 8.3.2003. When the petitioner replied to the same, the said notice was apparently abandoned and a release application was moved on 7.11.2012 under Section 21(1)(a) showing bonafide need, but the property in question was not accurately described. The petitioner filed a written statement on 7.4.2013 saying that the rent control case was not maintainable, as no notice for vacating the premises on bonafide need / requirement of the landlord was ever given to the tenant. The landlord has actually 5 rooms on the first floor and one big hall on the ground floor. Thereafter, an amendment application for amending the plaint was moved which was allowed by the learned Trial Court.
(3.) The Prescribed Authority allowed the release application on 12.9.2016, without considering the grievance of the petitioner both regarding non maintainability of the release application due to lack of giving notice prior to filing such release application and also not considering the comparative hardship of the tenant. The Prescribed Authority directed that the petitioner be evicted from the tenanted premises within 30 days of the order.;