MOHAN LAL GUPTA Vs. SATISH CHAND SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER impugned before this Court is the order dated 8/2/2011 wherein the application seeking leave to defend filed by the petitioner in a pending eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the DRCA) had been dismissed.

(2.) RECORD shows that the present eviction petition has been filed by the landlord Satish Chand Sharma seeking eviction of his tenant Mohan Lal Gupta from a shop measuring 9.3 x12.8 sq. RCR No.78/2011 Page 1 of 7 feet on the ground floor of the premises bearing No.F-2/7, Krishna Nagar, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ,,tenanted property) which had been rented out on a monthly rental of Rs. 60/- per month; this was on the basis of a written document. The landlord-tenant relationship between the parties is not disputed. It is not in dispute that the landlord is also the owner of the suit property and is entitled to maintain the eviction petition. The only ground which has been urged and argued before this Court is that the bonafide need of the petitioner has not been established. Contention is that along with the eviction petition the petitioner has filed a project report to substantiate his submission that he wants to carry on a business of readymade garments from the proposed show room to be set up in the suit premises. Contention is that in this project report the area of the proposed show room has been described as 407 sq. feet whereas the shop in question with the petitioner is only measuring 112 sq. feet and as such this project report filed by the petitioner is liable to be thrown out; moreover the expertise of the petitioner to start a business of readymade garments at the fag end of his life when admittedly he proposes to start this business after his age of retirement which makes him a senior citizen has not been established is also a submission which is worthy of little credit. Contention of the petitioner is that it is impossible to imagine that a service man who has spent all his life in government service would have the necessary training or skill to start or carry on such a business; this was a triable issue which has been declined by the trial court; as such the impugned order suffers from an illegality and it is liable to be set aside.

(3.) IN 2009(2) RCR 455 titled as Ram Babu Agarwal vs. Jay kishan Das, the Apex Court observed as under:-