MEETA AGGARWAL Vs. MUKESH BHATNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) 1. This said civil revision petition has been filed under Section 25 B (8) of Delhi Rent Control Act (here in after referred to as 'Act') assailing the order dated 10.05.2012 passed by ld. Additional Rent Controller (ARC) in Eviction Petition No. E- 198/2011, whereby the application of the petitioners-tenants seeking leave to defend was dismissed and eviction order under Section 14(1) (e) of the Act was passed in favour of the respondents-landlords in respect of shop no. 7/108-109, Circular Road, Shahdara, Delhi (tenanted shop). The tenanted shop is situated on the ground floor of the suit premises which is a built up plot measuring 120 sq. yards having two floors.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case leading to the present petition are that late S.B.L. Bhatnagar, father of the respondents, in his lifetime gave the tenanted shop on rent to Subhash Aggarwal, husband of petitioner no. 1 and father of petitioner no. 2 and 3. After the death of Subhash Aggarwal, the petitioners inherited the tenancy rights qua the shop. The eviction petition was filed by the respondents pleading that respondent no. 1 was unemployed and has been working with various printing units and has gained considerable experience in the field and required the tenanted shop for setting up a printing press. Lack of any other accommodation was also pleaded by the respondents.

(3.) IT has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order is bad in law as the ld. ARC has overlooked the triable issues raised before him. It has been further contented that the ld. ARC ignored the material concealment made by the respondents regarding additional properties available and failed to follow the settled legal proposition that incase of requirement of additional accommodation for the landlord leave to defend should normally not be refused to the tenant. Lastly, it has been submitted that the ld. ARC committed grave illegality in ignoring the pertinent fact that the entire case of respondents has been that the tenanted shop is required by respondent no. 1 to set up a printing press, whereas such activity is prohibited in the area.