SUSHIL MITTAL Vs. ARUN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER impugned before this Court is the judgment and decree dated 23.05.2011 wherein in a pending eviction petition filed by the landlord Arun Kumar seeking eviction of his tenant under Section 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) i.e premises comprising one shop in property No. 2855, Sirkiwalan, Hauz Qazi, Delhi as depicted in the red colour in the site plan filed by the petitioner had been decreed. The triable issues sought to be raised in the application for leave to defend filed by the tenant had been declined.

(2.) RECORD shows that the averments of the petitioner in his eviction petition is that he is the owner of the premises; premises were earlier owned by his grandfather Nihal Chand who had become owner by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 08.01.1948; after his death on 21.10.1985 in terms of his Will dated 11.04.1980, the property in dispute was bequeathed to his son Ramesh Kumar and to his grandson i.e the present petitioner Arun Kumar. Further contention is that the tenant had also attorned to the landlord and the accepted hiM as the landlord and owner of the demised premises; further contention being that the petitioner is carrying on business of iron and hardware in the name of ,,M/s Satyadev and Company being the sole proprietor thereof in a shop on the ground floor of property No. 2855 at Sikriwalan, Delhi just beneath the premises in dispute i.e. in contiguity with the premises which have been tenanted out to the tenant. This factual position is not in dispute and is also borne out from the site plan. Further averment of the petitioner in his eviction petition is that he is using the said shop for storage of stocks as also for sale as also as an office of the said business; he has huge stocks which are kept in the shop which space is not sufficient to accommodate the stocks as also to provide an office for the business of the petitioner; he has no other accommodation except this shop in his possession; he cannot conveniently run the aforenoted business as there is an insufficiency of space; tenanted premises on the first floor are accordingly bonafide required by him.

(3.) ON the first floor, it is not in dispute that there are two shops, one of which is with the present petitioner and the other has been let out to another tenant; contention of the tenant is that on the first floor, there is one chajja measuring 4feet X 9feet which is also available with the petitioner; this has been vehemently denied in the corresponding para of the reply; moreover photographs as depicted and relied upon by the tenant nowhere shows that this chajja has an available space of 4feet X 9feet space available on which any activity of the petitioner (as has been averred in ground 18-A of the eviction petition) can be carried out. This plea of alternate space available to the landlord on the first floor is thus clearly negatived. There is no dispute that there is one bathroom on the first floor.