Mahavir Prasad vs Ved Bharat Kapoor on 9 January, 2015

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+            RC.REV. 425/2011 and CM No.19507/2011

%                                         Reserved on: 6th January, 2015
                                          Decided on: 9th January, 2015

      MAHAVIR PRASAD                                    ..... Petitioner
                  Through:             Mr. Shiv Charan Garg and Mr. Imran
                                       Khan, Advocates.

                          versus

      VED BHARAT KAPOOR                                 ..... Respondent
                  Through:             Mr. Arvind K. Goel, Advocate.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J.

1. Vide the impugned judgment dated 1st April, 2011 the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short DRC Act) has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that three erroneous findings have been arrived at by the learned Trial Court:

(i) Though in Para 15 (D2) learned Trial Court holds that the requirement of one room by the Petitioner for his another son i.e. Ravi who is residing in U.K. at present along with his family but visits the petitioner is not mala fide in view of the judgment reported as Brij Mohan Vs. Sri Pal Jain 1993 RLR 190 however, in Para 15 (D5) he RC.REV. 425/2011 Page 1 of 6 holds the same requirement not to be bonafide and that one regular room is not required for the said purpose.

(ii) Learned Trial Court erroneously held that the petitioner concealed the material fact regarding the vacation of porti