PARMANAND Vs. SUMAN SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present rent revision petition has been filed under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (herein after referred to as DRCA) challenging the order dated 22.12.2010 passed by the ld. Additional Rent Controller (ARC) whereby the application filed by the petitioner seeking leave to defend eviction petition no. E- 196/08 was dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the respondents being the owners and landlord of property bearing no. K-13, Navin Shahdra, Delhi-110032(suit premises) filed an eviction petition dated 19.08.2008 against the petitioner(tenant) on the ground of bona fide requirement of the two shops situated at the ground floor of the suit premises. Respondent no.1 Suman Sharma along with her family which comprises of two sons, a daughter in law and a grandson resides at the ground floor of the suit premises. In the eviction petition, it was stated by respondent no. 1 that her elder son is working as an Accounts Executive and intends to open up his own business in the shops in possession of the petitioner. It was further stated that there is no other suitable commercial accommodation available with the respondent that could meet these requirements. An affidavit dated 10.07.2012 has been filed by respondent no. 2 before this Court submitting that her elder son who was employed at the time of filing the eviction petition, lost his job around January 2009 and since then is unemployed.

(3.) The application for leave to contest the eviction petition was filed by the petitioner on the ground that the requirement as projected by the respondents was not bonafide and the eviction petition had been filed in order to let out the suit shops at a higher rent. It was also averred by the petitioner that a godown situated on the rear side of the suit shops, let out by the respondents to another tenant, was lying vacant from past four years, but the respondents did not made any effort to gain its possession to meet their alleged requirement. The ownership of the respondents qua the suit shops was also disputed by the petitioner. Rejecting the contentions, the ld. ARC opined that the petitioner failed to raise any triable issue that would non-suit the respondents and he passed the eviction order dated 04.02.2010. In the meantime, the respondents also got an eviction decree in respect of the abovementioned godown which was in possession of another tenant. By the virtue of a compromise affected between the respondents and the tenant, it was agreed that the vacant and peaceful possession of the godown would be handed over to the respondents on or before 30 th June 2011. Taking note of the said eviction decree, the petitioner filed revision against the order dated 04.02.2010. Vide order dated 05.05.2010, this Court remanded the matter back to the ld. ARC for consideration and to give its finding on the issue. The ld. ARC considered the application for leave to defend filed by the petitioner in the light of the fact that the respondents had obtained the possession of a godown in the suit premises. The ARC arrived at the same conclusion. Hence, the present petition.