SURINDER MOHAN SINGH Vs. BALMUKUND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner (respondent before learned trial Court) under Section 25-B (8) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 challenging the eviction order dated 19.09.2009 passed by learned SCJ-cum-RC (Central) Delhi whereby the application of leave to defend the eviction petition filed by the petitioner was rejected by learned trial Court and eviction order was passed in favour of the respondent/landlord.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that respondent (petitioner before learned trial Court) is the co-owner of the shop no. 7783, Ground Floor, Arakashan Road, Gali No.3, Ramnagar, Paharganj, New Delhi and his brother Yudhveer Prashad is the other co-owner. The said shop was given on rent to the petitioner in the year 1980 at a rent of Rs. 200/- per month. The respondent submits that the premises in question is required by him for his bonafide need as well as need of his family members dependent upon him as he does not have any other reasonably suitable accommodation for his work. Respondent further submits that he and his brother have no shop for earning their livelihood and their only source of income is rent from their properties which is very meager and is not sufficient for their livelihood as rent received by them is not more than Rs. 1000/- per month and they are facing very difficult time. Respondent further submits that he and his brother are not able to maintain their health due to poor income and even their parents did not get proper medical treatment in time and they expired due to paucity of funds. Respondent further states that he and his brother are unmarried as they do not have any source of income and unless there is source of income they cannot afford to get married and if this shop is made available to them they will be able to earn their livelihood and enable them to get married and live a good married life. Respondent further submit that he requires the premises in question for his bonafide use.

(3.) The petitioner (respondent before learned trial Court) appeared before the trial Court and filed an application for leave to defend the eviction petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent and his brother Yudhvir Prasad are not the owners of the property in question and they have already having sufficient accommodation. They already have two shops in which they are running the business of grinding spices and are earning lucrative income from the said business. He further submitted that respondent and his brother are having another premises bearing municipal no. 4217, Tail Mandi Chowk, Paharganj from where also they are running the business of imparting coaching and are earning good income. Rate of rent is also disputed and it is stated the same is Rs. 50/- per month and not Rs. 200/- per month. It was mentioned in the leave to defend petition that respondent has also filed various petitions u/s 14 (1) (b) and 14 (1) (c) of DRC Act against other tenants also. It is also submitted that the respondent wants to evict the petitioner from the shop and he wants to re-let the shop at a higher rate of rent. It is further submitted by the petitioner that the respondent is earning very good income from the business of grinding spices and imparting of coaching. It is also submitted that the respondent has no bonafide requirement of the tenanted property and has already got alternative accommodation available with him and prayed that instant petition be dismissed.