- Delhi Rent Control Act, Section 25B, 14(1)(e) Evidence Act, Section 116 Order of eviction Revision petition under Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 13th December, 2011 passed by the learned RC whereby the application for leave to defend filed by the petitioner was rejected in the eviction petition preferred by the respondent, mainly, on the ground that the respondent is the owner of the demised premises and bonafidely require the premises for his own residence and has no other alternative accommodation At the time of filing of the eviction petition, the case of the respondent was that he along with his father had executed an agreement with the petitioner whereby the demised premises was given on lease to the petitioner for the residential purposes only and for no other purposes The first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent is not the owner of the suit property who has relied upon the Deed of Settlement as evidence of his title in the suit property. It is argued that the chain of documents which were part and parcel of family settlement have not been filed by the respondent It is settled law that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement and has complete freedom in the manner of the beneficial enjoyment of his property once it is not disputed that the landlord’s need is bonafide, it is not proper for the tenant to say that the landlord should shift to the first floor or any higher floor. None of the decisions referred by the petitioner would help his case as the facts in the present case are materially different Application stands disposed of
JAIN CLINIC PVT. LTD vs SUDESH RCREV 136/12 22/08/13 [ Manmohan JJ ]
[ DELHI HIGH COURT ]