SANTOSH CHAND GOEL Vs. VINAY GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition under Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the 'Act') impugns the judgment dated

(2.) 7.2010 of the Addl. Rent Controller (ARC), whereby the eviction petition being E-289/2008 filed by the petitioner, seeking eviction of the respondent, was dismissed. 2. The respondent is a tenant under the petitioner in respect of one shop in premises No. 1/9025, Main Babarpur Road, West Rohtash Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi @ Rs. 230/- per month exclusive of electricity charges. The tenanted premises was in fact let out to the husband of the respondent somewhere in 1973. The eviction of the respondent was sought by the petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act on the ground of bonafide requirement thereof by himself and his sons, stating them to be dependent upon him. On leave to defend being granted, the respondent filed written statement and contested the eviction petition. During the trial, the petitioner examined himself as PW1 and the respondent examined herself as RW1. Vide the impugned order, the learned ARC dismissed the eviction petition holding that the petitioner, being aged person and not being physically fit, was unable to carry any business and that all his sons, not being dependent upon him financially or otherwise, and having their independent businesses, the projected need of the premises required for himself and his sons, was not made out. Consequently, he dismissed the eviction petition.

(3.) THE case set up by the petitioner was that he is aged about 64 years and is doing the trading business. He has five sons namely Sandeep, Rajesh, Praveen, Vikas & Amit. None of his sons has any shop for trading purpose or for selling electric cables being manufactured by them. He thus, needed at least six shops for carrying the business by himself and his sons, who are dependent upon him for the purpose of business premises. At present, he had only three shops including the one in the tenancy of the respondent.