BABITA ARORA Vs. RAJESH MALHOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the 'Act') seeks assailing the order dated 17.4.2012 whereby the leave to defend application of the petitioners herein in the eviction petition filed against them by the respondents, was dismissed.

(2.) THE respondents had sought the eviction of the petitioners from the tenanted shop bearing No. 13, Ward No. IV, Esplande Road, Chandni Chowk, Delhi on the ground of bona fide requirement thereof by the respondent No. 2 Rajesh Jain. The petitioners filed the leave to defend application, which was declined by the learned ARC vide the impugned order. The same has been assailed in the instant petition by the petitioners/tenants. The grounds set up for seeking leave to defend as contained in the affidavit are that the respondents are having reasonably suitable and sufficient accommodation/properties in Delhi. It was averred that Rajesh Jain (respondent No. 2) is the owner and occupant of various properties such as 13-A, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, S- 24, Sunder Block, Shakarpur, New Delhi, Shop No. 26, Kuchha Chaudhary, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, S-233, First Floor, G.K.-I and Shop No. 33, Kuchha Chaudhary, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. It was also alleged that in the sale deed the area of the suit shop was mentioned 63 sq. ft., whereas its area was not more than 33 sq. ft.

(3.) THE controversy was sought to be raised by the petitioners that the MCD as also the erstwhile owner Preet Kumar were the necessary parties. They had filed application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading them in the array of the parties. The said application was also dismissed by the ARC vide the impugned order. So far as Preet Kumar is concerned, he had sold the suit premises to the respondents and now, had nothing to do with the same. With regard to the plea regarding impleadment of MCD, it was noted that in front of the suit shop, there is a Chabutra wherein unauthorized construction was raised without the permission of the MCD. It was for the said Chabutra existing in front of the shop that some proceedings were initiated by the MCD against the father of the petitioners, which led him to file a case, wherein ultimately, he started making payment of Teh Bazari in respect of area measuring 13.5 sq.ft. under Section 317, Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. Thus, the said portion cannot be said to be a part of the suit shop and in fact, it was not the case of the respondents as well. Even if the petitioners' father was granted licence to use the Chabutra in front of the shop, that does not create any tenancy rights therein and thus, the observation of the ARC that the MCD was not a necessary party, cannot be faulted with.