SUKH DEV RAJ SHARMA Vs. KULJEET SINGH JASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Section 25B-8 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the "Act?) seeks assailing the order dated 14.3.2012 of CCJ-cum-ARC, whereby the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner herein, was dismissed.

(2.) The petitioner is a tenant in respect of a shop No. J-5/101-C, Nehru Market, Rajouri Garde, New Delhi under the respondent. The eviction of the petitioner is sought on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted shop by the respondent for running of his business as also for residential requirement for himself and his family members dependent upon him. The case as set up by the respondent/landlord in the eviction petition is that he is engaged in running Snooker Parlor since 2004 on the ground floor of the suit premises, except in the portion in the tenancy of the petitioner. It is averred that his younger son is doing his business in a rented shop at Sadar Bazar, and he being permanent disabled and unable to do his business independently, needs assistance of his younger son in running the said business. The present accommodation for his Snooker Parlor business on the ground floor is also stated to be insufficient to accommodate his customers and visitors. It is averred that his elder son Harminder Singh is working in a private company and he is also interested to start his own business, which, he cannot, due to shortage of accommodation. Besides, his daughters-in-law are also unemployed and they are also interested to help the family to enhance their income by starting some business. It is the respondent?s case that since he alone cannot run the business on the ground floor and requires the services of his sons and other family members, as such, he requires additional accommodation. It is also averred that he is residing on the first floor with his wife, two married sons and their wives and two minor children, and the said accommodation even otherwise, is not sufficient and suitable for their residential requirement. It is averred that he being a disabled person is unable to climb the stairs and intends to live with his wife on the ground floor. It is averred that his wife is also a patient of depression and requires his constant presence or that of any family member, as she also has suicidal tendencies. Besides, it is also averred that he had two married sisters residing in Delhi, who frequently visit and stay with him.

(3.) The petitioner filed leave to defend application raising various issues. The learned ARC vide the impugned order has dismissed the application and passed eviction order. This order is under challenge in the instant position.