MOHD RIZWAN Vs. SHUJAAUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Section 25B(8) Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short the Act ) is directed against the order dated 03.10.2011 of Additional Rent Controller (ARC), Central, Delhi, dismissing his leave to defend application in the eviction petition filed against him by the respondent.

(2.) The petitioner is tenant in respect of one room bearing private No. 2 in property No. 2858, Ward No. 9, Gulbuli Khana, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi, under the respondent. It was averred in the petition that the family of the respondent consisted of himself, his second wife from whom he has one son aged 12 years, and also two sons Javed Nazir and Nazeem Parvez aged 35 and 34 years, their wives and children, and also one married daughter. The entire family, except the married daughter, was stated to be residing on the first, second and third floor of the suit premises, built on a plot of 40 square yards. The petitioner with his wife and youngest son is residing at the first floor; his eldest son with his wife and sons are on the second floor; and his son Javed Nazir on the third floor. He has one shop bearing private No. 1 on the ground floor of the suit premises, where he is doing the work of sewing machines. The respondent filed eviction petition seeking eviction of petitioner tenant from the tenanted shop on the ground of bonafide requirement thereof for his younger son Javed Parvez, who was stated to be running his tea vending shop with his friend in a rented small khokha measuring 2 feet x 2 feet in property bearing No. 2841, Gulbuli Khana, Delhi-6. The income from the tea shop being not sufficient for Pervez and his family, and there being no sufficient commercial space available, he intends to settle his son Pervez in the tenanted shop for running his independent business.

(3.) In the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner, it was alleged that all the family members being the owners of the tenanted premises, the respondent alone had no locus standi to file the petition. It was averred that the petitioner s son Nazeem was employed with Rana Silk Store and prior to that was with Alfa Store and is not engaged in any business at premises P-75, Gali No. 18, Brahampuri, Delhi or any other place. It was denied that Pervez is running tea shop as alleged in a khokha. It was averred that he is having a big shop with a built up first floor. The said shop is having two shutters and was let out on a monthly rent of Rs.6,000/- with first floor to Shakeel, who is using the first floor for the residence of his employees. It was alleged that Pervez and the petitioner are doing business from the shop in premises No. A-75, Gali No. 18, Brahampuri, Delhi and the first floor thereof has been let out to someone recently. Shop No. 1 in the suit premises was also alleged to be lying vacant and the respondent in the process of letting it out to someone else. Then, it was alleged that the respondent and his son Pervez had started the business in this shop in competition with the petitioner.