VIJAY KIRAN JAIN Vs. RENT CONTROL TRIBUNAL, DELHI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A few facts leading to this petition, which is one filed under Article 217 of the Constitution may alone be noticed. The petitioner Vijay Kiran Jain was at tenant under Smt. Ram Murti Rustogi (second respondent) of one room in the first floor of the size of 20'.3' x 10.3" with a bath room on the ground floor whereas she herself, her husband, their seven children and her father were living in the adjoining three rooms. An application for eviction, which was dismissed by the Rent Controller on the ground that the landlady had not proved the purchase of the entire premises, was allowed by the Rent Control Tribunal, on the ground that the landlady required the portion of the premises let out to the petitioner for her own personal occupation. It set aside the finding of the Rent Controller that the purchase had not been proved by her, her husband having actually brought to Court the registered sale-deed showing the purchase of the property.

(2.) Considering her bonafide requirement of the portion in the petitioner's possession for her own occupation the Rent Control Tribunal observed as under :-

(3.) Discussing the tenant's contention that the landlady had been letting out from time to time and that if she required the additional accommodation of the contiguous portions she could not have let out the first floor accommodation to other tenant, the Tribunal further observed as follows :