PAWAN KUMAR Vs. SANT LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT revision petition under section 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short ,,the Act) seeks assailing of order dated 27 th March 2012 of Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, North, Delhi, whereby leave to defend application of the petitioners herein, was dismissed.

(2.) THE petitioners are joint tenants in respect of one shop measuring about 10 ft x 15 ft abutting the main road on the front, with entry and exit to it from the roadside, in the suit premises No. 2/7, Roop Nagar, Delhi. The tenanted premises was shown in red colour in the site plan filed with the eviction petition. The suit premises was stated to be let out to the petitioners vide agreement dated 10.09.1992 for carrying on the business of motor car accessories etc. The petitioners eviction was sought by the respondents, who are brothers, and are living with their families in first and second floors of the suit premises. The tenanted premises was sought to be required for the son of respondent No. 2 Kailash Chander, who is a Doctor with MBBS degree and registered with Delhi Medical Council and was unemployed. He intended to set up his clinic in the tenanted premises. The entire ground floor, except the tenanted premises, was let out to Indian Overseas Bank. It was the case of the petitioners that since they did not have any other suitable commercial premises, the tenanted premises was required for setting up a clinic.

(3.) THE respondents refuted all the averments of the petitioners. The basement and the entire ground floor, except the tenanted premises and passage to the first floor, was stated to be under the tenancy of the bank since 1984. The first and second floor of the premises, were stated being used by the respondents for the residence of their families. It was averred that since Dr. Ankit could not get any suitable job, nor he had any space for his clinic, he joined two years diploma course in anesthesiology at Dehradun in the year 2010 as additional qualification, which he will be completing in the year 2012, and thereafter he intends to set up his clinic in the tenanted premises. It was denied that Dr. Ankit was working in any hospital or had good income. It was also denied that they had let out any additional space to the bank in the year 2008 or any part of the open space to the bank for ATM in 2008. With regard to other properties, allegedly owned by the respondents, it was specifically stated that properties mentioned at Serial No. (ii) to (vi) are owned by Sushila Gupta, wife of respondent No. 1, and his brother-in-law S.K. Mittal, and that respondent No. 2 or any of his family members had no interest or right in them. Similarly, properties mentioned at Serial No. (vi) to (viii) were stated to be vacant residential plots of Smt. Sushila Gupta, but, these had already been sold in the year 2004-2005. The contention of the petitioner that the properties mentioned at Serial No. (viii) and (ix) are owned by the respondents, is stated to be vague and false.