SURESH KUMAR Vs. YUDHVEER PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The impugned order is dated 30.11.2011; the eviction petition filed by the landlord Yudhveer Prashad seeking eviction of his tenant Suresh Kumar from the suit premises i.e. shop No. 7781, Aarakashan Road, Gali No. 3, Ram Nagar, Paharganj, New Delhi under Section 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) had been decreed; the application seeking leave to defend had been declined. Today an application has been filed on record wherein it is alleged that certain subsequent events have occurred during the pendency of the petition; it is imperative to bring these facts before this Court; the said facts being that the eviction petition filed by the co-brother/co-landlord qua the shop No. 7783, Aarakashan Road, Gali No. 3, Ram Nagar, Paharganj, New Delhi has since been ordered to be vacated by the Apex Court in terms of the order of the Apex Court dated 04.07.2011. Contention of the petitioner is that this is a subsequent fact which has to be brought to the notice of the Court. This application has been opposed. Contention of the respondent is that this is only one more delaying tactic on the part of the petitioner and this submission of the respondent has forceful force. The fact that the eviction petition filed by the other brother Bal Mukund for shop No. 7783 and the fact that it had been decreed and the Apex Court had also on 04.07.2011 directed that the suit premises shall be vacated by the tenant within a period of nine months was a fact which had in fact found mention even in the application seeking leave to defend filed by the tenant before the Additional Rent Controller (ARC); this is clear from the averments made in para 7; this application seeking leave to defend had been filed in September, 2011 and dismissal of the SLP on 04.07.2011 did find mention in this application seeking leave to defend. As such no new fact has been brought to the notice of the Court; this application has been filed malafide and primarily with a view to delay the proceedings; it is accordingly dismissed.

(2.) Record shows that the present eviction petition has been filed by the landlord Yudhveer Prasad seeking eviction of his tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement. It has been detailed in the eviction petition that the petitioner Yudhveer Prasad along with his brother Bal Mukund are the joint owners of the aforenoted property. This fact has specifically been disclosed in the eviction petition. The present eviction petition (as noted supra) has been filed by Yudhveer Prasad alone; there is also no dispute to the proposition that one co-owner can by himself maintain an eviction petition under Section 14 (1)(e) of the DRCA; this proposition has also not been disputed. Grounds of eviction are contained in para 18 (a); the premises are required by the landlord himself and members of his family who are dependent upon him and there is no other reasonable suitable accommodation available with them. Eviction petition had accordingly been filed.

(3.) Leave to defend had been filed by the tenant. Vehement arguments had been addressed by the learned counsel for the tenant. His contention is that the triable issue has arisen as there are other alternate accommodations available with the landlord. Attention has been drawn to para 7 wherein it has been stated that the shop No. 7780 situated in the same locality is also an accommodation which is available with the landlord and so also shop No. 7783 where a masala chakki is being run. In para 8 it has been contended that shops are also lying vacant in katra No. 7784, Gali No. 3, Ram Nagar, Delhi; all these facts have not been disclosed deliberately; the need of the petitioner is not bonafide.