PUSHPENDER SINGH Vs. RAJ KUMAR KASHYAP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this common order the aforesaid three revision petitions are being disposed of as common questions of facts and law are involved. These three petitions arise out of the three separate orders passed by Learned Additional Rent Controller, in the eviction petitions filed by the petitioner against the respondents in respect of their respective rented shops in the suit premises bearing No. B-8, Old Plot No. 43, Block-5, Kanti Nagar, Shahdara. The petitioner had filed separate eviction petitioners against the respondents, wherein the respondents filed leave to defend applications, which were allowed by the ARC vide separate impugned orders, which are under challenge in the instant petitions.

(2.) THE eviction of the respondents was sought by the petitioner from their respective shops on the ground of his bona fide requirement for opening showroom of electronic goods in all these shops. His case is that he does not have any other reasonably suitable commercial accommodation in Delhi and that he has been visiting Australia for job purposes, but now he wants to settle permanently in Delhi to do his business in these shops. The respondents disputed the bona fide requirement of the petitioner alleging him to be not requiring these suit shops, and also having sufficient accommodation on the ground floor as also on the first and the second floor. It was also alleged by all the respondents that the petitioner has got vacated one shop from the tenant Gurmeet Singh on 15.12.2011 and has let out the same immediately thereafter to another tenant on 18.12.2011. It was their case that on the back of this shop, the petitioner has sufficient accommodation comprising of hall and store, which can be used for commercial purposes.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents and perused the record including the impugned order.