KISHORI LAL KRISHAN KUMAR Vs. ANKIT RASTOGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions. RCR No. 413/2011 and CM No. 19376/2011 (stay)This petition has impugned the order dated 4.7.2011 whereby the petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25(B) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) had been dismissed.

(2.) Record shows that the present eviction petition had been filed by the landlord-Ankit Rastogi under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRCA. He claimed himself the owner and landlord of premises forming a part of property bearing No. 4479-80, Dau Bazar, Cloth Market, Delhi comprising ground floor, first floor and a second floor. The ground floor was in occupation of the present tenant. Petitioner is stated to be 34 years of age; he has experience in the business of sale and purchase of sarees and other textiles and handicraft as he was a partner of M/s. Ankit Saree; thereafter he had started his individual commission business in textile since 1997. Petitioner has no immovable property in Delhi; he intends to start his own business and for his own bona fide requirement he wants eviction of the suit premises.

(3.) The defend ant / tenant had filed his application for leave to defend. The first contention raised is that the petitioner is not the landlord /owner of the suit premises. This has been disputed by the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the premises were originally owned by Smt. Bhagwati Devi; petitioner in his affidavit has stated that Bhagwati Devi was his grandmother and in terms of her Will dated 14.7.1982, the suit premises had been bequeathed to him; the same has also been mutated in the municipal records. The application for leave to defend shows that the tenant has in fact not challenged the fact that Ankit Rastogi is not his landlord; in fact in his application, he has stated that the petitioner had stopped receiving rent from the respondent, in these circumstances, the rent was being rendered by the tenant by way of a money order to the petitioner. Thus, the relationship of landlord and tenant stands admitted between the parties. For a petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRCA, the relationship of landlord and tenant is a crucial factor and this relationship having been admitted this objection is clearly without merit.