Bapna, J—This is a revision under sec. 35 of the Delhi and Aimer Rent Control Act, 1952 (No. XXXVIII of 1952).

2. The respondent Bala Sahai instituted a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent. The allegation was that he required the house bonafide for his own use. A notice was given to the defendant to vacate, but he did not do so. The plea of the defendant, as is evident from a perusal of the judgment of the lower court was that the plaintiff did not require the house bona fide for his own use, and the notice was bad in law. In respect of the claim for arrears of rent, a counter claim for adjustment of a certain sum spent by the defendant on repairs was made. The defence was struck off because of the non-compliance of the order given by the court under sec. 13 (5) of the Act Thereafter the trial court held that the plaintiff bona fide required the premises for his own use, and the notice was valid. The plaintiffs claim for ejectment was decreed and arrears were also decreed to the extent of Rs. 10. The plaintiff was further granted damages for use and occupation at Rs. 10/-p.m. from the date of suit till delivery of possession on payment of additional court fee. The defendant filed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document