SEWA SINGH Vs. OM PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,1958(hereinafter called `the Act') has been filed by the petitioners- landlords against the order dated 02.03.10 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller whereby the application filed by respondent no.2 herein for leave to contest the eviction petition filed against him and respondent no.1 under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act for their eviction from two shops on the ground floor of property bearing no. 26, Rameshwar Nagar, Azad Pur, Delhi, has been allowed.

(2.) THE petitioners are the owners of a double storey building no. 26, Rameshwar Nagar, Azad Pur, Delhi which has five shops on the ground floor out which four shops, in respect of which three eviction petitions were filed, had been let out separately to three tenants. THE respondent no.1 herein was let out two shops bearing nos. 2 and 4. THE respondent no.2 was impleaded in the eviction petition as a sub-tenant.

(3.) THE learned Additional Rent Controller had come to the conclusion in the impugned order, by which common order he had allowed all the applications moved in the three petitions seeking leave to defend the eviction petitions, that there was no dispute about the extent of accommodation available with the petitioners on the first floor of house No. 26, Rameshwar Nagar, Azad Pur and as far as the plea of the tenant that the landlord had four rooms on the ground floor also is concerned, it was not acceptable. THE petitioners' case was that they required one room for petitioner no. 1 on the ground floor because of his old age and medical problems, one room for petitioner no. 2 and his wife, one room for their son, one room to be used as study room by the grandchildren and one room for pooja. THE trial Court has accepted this requirement to be bona fide. THE petitioners also claimed one room for guests and one room for the son of petitioner no. 1 who was living in Chandigarh and who, even according to the trial court, had every right to visit his parents. THE trial court, however, accepted the requirement of one room only for the guests as well as the son staying at Chandigarh. THE case of the petitioners that the parents of the petitioner no.1 who were over eighty years of age also needed to be live with their son has not been accepted by the trial court on the ground that they were not dependant on their son for their residence. Thus, the learned Additional Rent Controller concluded that the petitioners were having only two bed rooms, one drawing room and one dining room with them on the first floor and one room (shop no.1) on ground floor while their requirement was of five rooms i.e. one room for the petitioner no.1, one room for the petitioner no.2 and his wife and one room for their child , one room to be used as a pooja room and one for the guests. Still, leave was granted to the respondent to contest the eviction petition on the ground that the landlords were claiming the possession of four shops from three different tenants while their requirement was not for all the four shops and since it could not be decided at the stage of disposal of leave to contest application as to which of the three shops should be got vacated and from which of the three tenants leave deserved to be granted in all the three petitions. This is what the learned Additional Rent Controller observed in the concluding para of the impugned order:-