R N VERMA Vs. GULSHAN RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the outset, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner states that by this petition the petitioner is only impugning the order dated 19.8.2010 which has dismissed the application for leave to defend and has decreed the petition for bonafide necessity under Section 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In my opinion this petition is liable to be dismissed on the short point of lack of locus of the petitioner.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the subject eviction petition under Section 14(l)(e) of the Act was filed for eviction of three respondents, namely, Sh. S.N. Verma as respondent No. 1, Sh. R.N. Verma, respondent No. 2 and M/s. Verma Leather Factory and Tannery Pvt. Ltd. as respondent No. 3. It was averred in the petition that father of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, namely late Sh. B.N. Verma was the original tenant of the premises, and after his death tenancy devolved upon respondent Nos. 1 and 2. After averring these facts, the petitioner in the eviction petition stated as under:

(3.) The position which emerged in the trial Court was that the respondent No. 1 did not file an application for leave to defend. The petition was therefore rightly decreed against respondent No. 1 who in any case is not the petitioner before the Court. The eviction petition was decreed against the present petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner made a specific averment in the leave to defend application filed by him that the respondent No. 2 was not the tenant and respondent No. 3/company was the tenant. I note that the respondent No. 3/company in the trial Court is not the petitioner before me and the only petitioner before me is the respondent No. 2 in the trial Court and who stated that he is not the tenant and tenant is the respondent No. 3.