BENSON SHOES Vs. SH. CHUNNI LAL TAKKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this revision petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 8th October, 2009 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller dismissing an application under Section 25B(4) of Delhi Rent Control Act made by the petitioner for seeking leave to defend the eviction petition.

(2.) Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the petitioner is a tenant in respect of one shop on the ground floor of property No. 6/51, WEA, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The shop was being used as a godown. The respondent-landlord is living in rest of the property along with his entire family including his sons, grandsons and their children. The respondent filed eviction petition under Section 14(1) (e) stating that the accommodation in the occupation of himself and his family members was not sufficient and he required the tenanted premises for the bona fide use of his family. The landlord filed site plan of the three floors of the property and gave description of his entire family along with family tree living in the premises.

(3.) The tenant in his leave to defend took a stand that since the site plan was photocopy of the blue print, he was not in a position to read the site plan and not in a position to challenge the site plan. The other plea taken by the tenant before learned Additional Rent Controller was that the landlord and his family members were having other properties and if he was given a chance (that is leave to defend), then he shall prove other properties owned by the landlord. Next ground taken was that all the family members of the landlord were not living with him and some of them had taken separate accommodation and if he was given a chance, he would prove this. The next ground taken by the tenant was that the accommodation already available with the landlord and his family in the building was sufficient and the shop in occupation was not required bona fidely by the landlord.