DEV RAJ Vs. RAJINDER JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been preferred under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) assailing the order dated 03.04.2012 passed by the learned ARC whereby eviction order was passed against the present petitioner.

(2.) THE eviction petition No.E-13/2010 was filed by the respondent/landlord in respect of one room, tenanted out to the petitioner/tenant in property bearing No.1663-A, Chawla Bus Stand, Najafgarh, New Delhi, on the ground of bona fide requirement. It was stated by the landlord that the property under the tenancy of the tenant was very old, constructed by mud, with roof made of stone slabs and requires immediate reconstruction. It was submitted by the respondent that he has no permanent employment and was earning his livelihood by engaging in different works at different places. It was submitted by the respondent that when his business of supply of spare parts did not work at Delhi, then he moved to Bangalore in search of employment, which also resulted in utter failure and he was constrained to sell off his house in order to satisfy the creditors. It was submitted that in view of such compelling circumstances and absence of any other accommodation, the respondent required the entire premises for meeting the residential requirement of himself and his family members and also to start a business of auto parts. It was further averred that his elder daughter had recently completed a course of interior designing and wanted to pursue it professionally and hence also required a separate shop in the suit premises.

(3.) IT is settled legal principal that leave to defend is granted to the tenant in case of any triable issue raised before the trial Court which can be adjudicated by consideration of additional evidence. In Precision Steel & Engineering Works & Anr. Vs. Prem Devi Niranjan Deva Tayal (1982) 3 SCC 270, the Apex Court has held that the p4rayer for leave to contest should be granted to the tenant only where a prima facie case has been disclosed by him. In the absence of the tenant having disclosed a prima facie case i.e. such facts as to what disentitles the landlord from obtaining an order of eviction, the Court should not mechanically and in routine manner grant leave to defend.