SURENDER GARG Vs. MOHIT JINDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Section 25B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the 'Act') is directed against the order dated 19.05.2012 of Addl. Rent Controller (ARC), whereby the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner herein, was dismissed.

(2.) In the eviction petition filed by the respondents seeking eviction of the petitioner from the tenanted premises, which is a shop bearing No. 530, West Guru Angad Nagar, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, the petitioner/tenant had filed leave to defend application, which was dismissed by the ARC vide the impugned order. The eviction of the petitioner was sought on the ground of the tenanted premises being required by respondent No.1 Mohit Jindal, for the commercial purpose, as the respondents did not have any reasonably suitable commercial premises. The respondents' case was that the suit premises was owned by them, being the legal heirs of late Smt. Chameli Devi, the original owner/landlady of the premises. It was their case that out of the three shops on the ground floor of the suit premises, one shop was in the tenancy of the petitioner, second with some other tenant and third in the possession of the respondents. It was also the case of the respondents that the respondent No. 1 Mohit Jindal intended to start the business of telecommunication and other related goods from the shop in their possession as also the tenanted shop. It was averred that the shop, which is in the possession of the respondents, is not sufficient for operating or carrying franchisee business of any company of telecommunication, and to have a decent livelihood, Mohit Jindal intended to do his business from both the shops jointly.

(3.) The leave to defend application was filed by the petitioner, disputing the respondents to be the owners/landlords of the suit premises. It was alleged that the respondents owned several other properties such as 70A, Pocket A, Dilshad Garden, premises No. 74, Krishna Kunj Extension, II Part, IInd Floor, premises No. 219, Ist Floor, Guru Ram Das Nagar, Laxmi Nagar and premises being 629, Guru Ram Das Nagar, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. It was also alleged that the site plan filed was not correct. It was further alleged that the present accommodation with the respondents in the suit premises as also at other places, as stated, was sufficient and suitable.