BANARSI DASS SODHI Vs. OM PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 25 B (8) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1950 (herein after referred to as the "Act" only) is directed against an order dated 3.0.2001 passed by learned Additional Rent Controller, Delhi by which the eviction petition filed by the respondent under Section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25 D of the Act was allowed and an order of eviction was passed against the petitioner.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. I have gone through the Trial Court Records.

(3.) The only ground on which the impugned eviction order stands challenged is that the plea of bonafide need, as raised by the respondent before the Trial Court, was not made out in as much as the evidence on record had shown that after the issuance of eviction notice the respondent had converted two rooms and a kitchen on the ground floor of his house into three shops shown 'A' 'B' and "C" in the site plan Ex.PW1/1. Out of these three shops one shop was being used by respondent's daughter Meena Sharma for running STD Booth while in the other shop, another daughter of the respondent Rachna Sharma was running a beauty parlour. It was also in evidence that in January 2000 the respondent had let out the third shop to a Halwai. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that in an another Suit No. 51/98 between the petitioner and the mother of the respondent a site plan was filed a copy of which is Ex.R-1 . In this site plan, respondent was shown to be in possession of six residential rooms besides other facilities. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the conduct of the respondent in converting the residential rooms and other portions into shops demolishes his case of bonafide need for residential use. It is also argued that the respondent was falsely alleging that he had only one bed room whereas in Suit No.51/98 it was categorically stated that he was having six residential rooms.