MOHD JAFAR Vs. NASRA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition has been filed under Section 25B of Delhi Rent Control Act (here in after referred to as 'Act' ) read with Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure assailing the order of ld. Additional Rent Controller ( ARC) in Eviction Petition No. E- 463/2009, whereby the application of the petitioner seeking leave to defend was dismissed and eviction order under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act was passed in favour of the respondent in respect of shop no. 780, Ward No. 6, Kabari Bazar, Delhi. The eviction petition was filed by the respondent landlord on the ground of bona fide requirements. It was on the averments that the respondent required the tenanted shop in question for her son Mohd. Akbar, who wanted to set up the business of selling of old motor parts and other accessories. The petitioner filed the application for leave to defend the eviction petition stating that the respondent is in possession of first and second floor of the shops no.780, 781, 782,783 and 784 Kabari Bazar, Jama Masjid and the husband of the respondent is running a hotel in these shops which shows that the requirement as projected by the petitioner is not bonafide. It was also stated by the petitioner that the son of the respondent is already engaged in the business of his father at shop no. 782, Motor Market, Jama Masjid and does not require the tenanted shop for starting a business. In the reply to the leave to defend application the respondent denied the allegations made by the petitioner and contents of the eviction petition were reiterated. While dismissing the application for leave to defend, the ld. ARC expressed the view that the petitioner was not able to raise any triable issue and the bonafide requirement of the suit shop has been established by the respondent landlord.

(2.) It has been averred by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order suffers from illegality as the ld. ARC has overlooked the triable issues raised by the petitioner. It has been further contented that the ld. ARC ignored the material contradictions made by the respondent, regarding additional properties available with her, in the reply filed to the application seeking leave to defend. Reliance has been placed by the petitioner on Santosh Devi Soni vs. Chand Kiran to contend that incase of requirement of additional accommodation for the landlord leave to defend should normally not be refused to the tenant.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has urged that the order of the ld. ARC requires no interference which has been passed after taking into consideration the bonafide requirement of the respondent for the shop in order to enable her son to start a business of spare parts. It has been further submitted that no triable issues were raised by the petitioner that would merit the grant of leave to defend the eviction petition to the petitioner.