SATISH KUMAR Vs. SUBHASH CHAND AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the 'Act') impugns the order dated 17.09.2011 of Addl. Rent Controller (ARC) whereby the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner/tenant in the eviction petition filed against him by the respondent was dismissed.

(2.) The eviction petition was filed by the respondent herein against the petitioner on the ground of bona fide requirement under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Act in respect of the premises bearing No. 3/65 and 3/63, Chhota Bazar, Shahdara, Delhi. These tenanted premises are shown in red and yellow colour in the site plan that was annexed to the eviction petition. The eviction of the petitioner/tenant was sought on the ground of the respondent/landlord needing the tenanted premises; he being not in possession of any other reasonably suitable residential or non-residential accommodation for himself or for his family members dependent upon him. It was his case that his family consists of himself, his wife, three sons namely Rajnish Aggarwal, Amit Aggarwal, Tarun Aggarwal and two daughters-in-law as also two grandsons. It was also his case that he was suffering from various ailments and was facing problem in climbing the stairs and so, he wanted to live at the ground floor tenanted premises. At present, his entire family was living in the first and second floor of the suit premises. It was also his case that the tenanted premises was also required by his son Tarun, who is an advocate, for his office and also to accommodate his son Amit, who is presently working with him. It was averred that both Amit and Rajnish are married, but since Amit has no independent business, this has become a cause of strained relationship between them. He owned one other property being 304, Bada Thakur Dwara, Shahdara, Delhi, but the same being in dilapidated condition, and situated as a narrow gali, was not usable for residential or commercial purpose.

(3.) The petitioner/tenant had sought leave to defend alleging various grounds. He disputed the respondent to be the owner/landlord of the tenanted premises. He also alleged that there is a dispute regarding the extent of tenanted premises since the landlord himself had claimed the property bearing No. 3/63, shown in yellow colour, to be unauthorizedly occupied by him and not in his tenancy. It was his case that this property being 3/63 shown in yellow colour, is part of the tenanted premises bearing No. 3/65, which was let out to Umesh Kumar and brothers by one Arun Kumar vide lease deed dated 24.2.1995 and thus, the number of whole of the tenanted premises shown in red and yellow colour in site plan bears No. 3/65. It was also alleged by the petitioner/tenant that the respondent/landlord is in possession of two shops on the ground floor, which are being run by him (respondent) and his family members. He also alleged that there is another small shop on the ground floor which was in occupation of the respondent and he was carrying on the business from that shop and now, he has removed the door of the shop in order to show the paucity of accommodation. It was further his case that on the first floor of the property being 3/61 to 3/65, the respondent/landlord had four living rooms, kitchen, bathroom alongwith latrine and abovesaid portion is in use and occupation of his family members, but he has shown the same as go-down and store. It was also alleged that on the second floor, the respondent/landlord has four living rooms in his possession.