HARPAL SINGH Vs. LEELA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 has been filed against the order dated 08.12.10 passed by the learned trial court whereby eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act filed against the petitioner - tenant by his landlady, respondent herein, in respect of one shop under his tenancy (hereinafter referred to as the tenanted shop) has been allowed and an eviction order has been passed after rejecting his application for leave to contest filed under Section 25-B(4) of the Act.

(2.) THE respondent -landlady is the owner of the property no. 1/4086, Ashok Marg, Ram Nagar Extension, Mandoli Road, Shahdara, Delhi and the petitioner is the tenant in respect of one shop on the ground floor. THE respondent- landlady in her eviction petition had pleaded that her family was of twelve members comprising of herself, her husband, four sons, out of which two were married and have two kids each. THE landlady further pleaded that the tenanted shop is required for her family members for opening a general store as her husband who was a government employee had retired on 31.07.2008 and had no source of income to maintain himself. It was also pleaded by the respondent landlady that her husband wanted to run a general store with the assistance of their two daughters-in-law and the tenanted shop was required as no other space was available in the house in question for that purpose.

(3.) IN my view, the learned Additional Rent Controller cannot be said to have committed any material irregularity in not accepting the petitioner tenants plea that the room shown in the site plan annexed with the eviction petition was not a store room and the same could be used for opening a shop. The petitioner has not made any attack in the present revision petition on the above quoted observations of the Additional Rent Controller regarding the availability of the room described in the site plan as a store with the respondent landlady and the same being not sufficient for doing any kind of business therein. Except for taking this plea, the petitioner tenant has not challenged the bona fides of respondents decision to make the tenanted shop available to her husband and two daughters-in-law for running a general store to earn money for the entire family comprising of 12 members. If that be so, I do not find any merit in this revision petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.