LAWS(DLH)-2011-2-295

GIRDHARI LAL GOOMER Vs. P P GAMBHIR

Decided On February 15, 2011
GIRDHARI LAL GOOMER Appellant
V/S
P.P.GAMBHIR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petitions under section 25-B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short as "the Act") have been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 13.10.2010 passed by Additional Rent Controller (for short as "the Controller") Delhi, whereby leave to defend/contest the eviction petition has been dismissed and an eviction order is passed under section 14(1)(e) read with section 25(B) of Act against the petitioner in respect of suit premises.

(2.) THE brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the petitioners are tenant in a shop admeasuring 15'X8' (120 sq.ft.) in property bearing No.E-3, Kalkaji, New Delhi at a monthly rent of Rs. 100/-. THE said shop was originally taken on rent on lease from Shri Om Dutt Malik in the year 1955-56 and for the last 55 years the petitioners are running the said shop as tenant. THE petitioners are senior citizen aged above 70 years and carrying on business from the tenanted premises since 1955 onwards. THE petitioners have no other sufficient means to earn their livelihood. THE respondent purchased some portion of the building bearing No.E-3, Kalkaji, New Delhi from its previous owner Shri Om Dutt Malik S/o Late Shri Raghunath Rai Vide Agreement to Sell dated 26.11.1996 which included the tenanted shops on the Ground Floor admeasuring 300 sq.ft., i.e., about 120 sq.ft. under tenancy of the petitioners and other 180 sq.ft. under tenancy of the spouse of the petitioners. Shri Om Dutt Malik also executed a Will and Power of Attorney in favour of the respondent, however, the Agreement to Sell dated 26.11.1996, last Will dated 06.03.1989 were not registered. THE respondent admitted that "Shri Om Dutt Malik from whom the respondent had purchased the said property has expired and his Will has come into operation in favour of the respondent".

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has argued that the respondent/landlord was not at all sure that for what purpose the suit premises is required by the respondent/landlord.