SHANKAR KUMAR MITTAL Vs. MUKESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE impugned judgment is dated 22.10.2011; the eviction petition filed by the landlord Mukesh Kumar seeking eviction of his tenant Shankar Kumar Mittal from shop bearing municipal No. 3649/3, Gali Rura Acharwali, Delhi situated on the ground floor of the suit property had been decreed. THE application filed by the tenant seeking leave to defend had been declined.

(2.) RECORD shows that the present eviction petition has been filed by the landlord on the ground of bonafide requirement; he claims himself to be owner/landlord of the aforenoted premises; the respondent was inducted as a tenant in respect of one shop i.e. shop No. 3649/3 situated on the ground floor of the aforenoted property vide rent receipt dated 04.01.1979. Rent of the premises had been enhanced under Section 6-A of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA); the tenant had committed default in payment of rent. The eviction petition had been preferred under Section 14 (1)(e) of the DRCA on the ground of bonafide need. Contention of the landlord is that he is carrying on hisbusiness in hardware, rubber and iron goods, aluminum and brass doors and window fittings, industrial and other trolley wheels and castor wheels etc from shop No. 3663, Chawri Bazar. His goods are required to be stocked for business purposes; presently the stocks are being maintained at shop-cum-godown space No. 2 & 11, ground floor, first floor and in the tin shed built up on the roof of the third floor; in maintaining this stock at the aforenoted higher place i.e. on the first and third floors, the petitioner has to incur extra expenditure which is for cartage purposes; frequent visits are required to these places to fulfill the demands of the customers and it is inconvenient for the petitioner to make inroads on the first and third floor where the goods also become damaged; tin shed on the third floor is also exposed to rain and sunlight which again causes damages to the goods. The rented premises are accordingly required by the petitioner for stocking his goods on the ground floor; this is a genuine and bonafide need.

(3.) THE only ground largely urged in the application for leave to defend and argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that non- applicant/respondent is not the owner of the suit premises; his contention is that the landlord is seeking eviction of his tenant for malafide reasons; his need is not bonafide. Further contention being that he has sufficient accommodation available with him and he has shops on all the floors including the entire third floor which would be sufficient to meet his needs.