TEJ PRAKASH Vs. IDRIS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the 'Act') impugns the order dated 6.6.2012 of the learned Addl. Rent Controller whereby the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner in the eviction petition filed against them by the respondents, was dismissed.

(2.) THE petitioner is a tenant under the respondents in respect of one shop on the ground floor of the premises being D-715, Jahangir Puri, which is shown red in the site plan that was filed by the respondents along with the eviction petition. The eviction of the petitioner from the suit shop was sought by the respondents on the ground that the suit shop is required by the respondent No. 4 namely Danish, who was stated to be unemployed and not having any source of income and dependent upon respondent Nos. 1 & 2. It was their case that they do not have any other alternative suitable commercial space available to settle the respondent No. 4 Danish.

(3.) IT was the plea of the petitioner that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. This issue has been dealt with by the ARC recording that the petitioner admittedly tendered the rent to Smt. Hafizan and on her refusal, directly tendered the same in the court, and also thereafter, sought to deposit rent under Section 27 of the D.R.Act. It was also the case of the petitioner that respondent No. 1 had come to the shop and demanded the rent claiming himself to be the son of the deceased Hafizan. In the petition under Section 27, the petitioner sought to deposit rent @ Rs. 600/- per month from 10.10.2011 to 9.2.2012. Since he admitted to tender the rent to respondent No. 1 and thereafter, filed petition under Section 27 of the Act, therefore, he seems to have admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the respondents. It is not the case of the petitioner that anyone other than the respondents ever claimed rent from him, at any point of time in respect of the suit premises. The learned ARC observed, and rightly so, that the petitioner is now stopped from disputing the relation of landlord and tenant in respect of the suit premises between the parties.