RANJIT SINGH SETHI Vs. GURMEET SINGH CHAWLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IMPUGNED order dated 24.02.2011 had dismissed the application for leave to defend filed by the tenant and decreed the eviction petition filed by the landlord under Section 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the ?DRCA?).

(2.) RECORD shows that this eviction petition has been filed by the landlord Gurmeet Singh Chawla seeking eviction of the shop in property No. X/922, Private No. 3, Chand Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar, Khasra No. 121, Delhi which was under the tenancy of the tenant Ranjit Singh Sethi. The petitioner claims himself to be owner of the suit property; the property was original owned by his father Hardev Singh who had sold it to him vide a registered sale deed dated 22.06.2000; it is not in dispute that the tenant had attorned to the present landlord and has been paying rent to him. Contention of the petitioner before this Court is that the sale deed suffers from an infirmity and the shop under the tenancy is not the subject matter of the sale deed; this contention now raised was never a part of his pleadings i.e. a part of his leave to defend application; this argument now propounded cannot be gone into in the absence of a pleading to the said effect; even other in view of the fact that there is a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner as also the admitted fact that the tenant was paying rent to the landlord, in view of the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act there is little scope for argument left to the tenant on this score. The trial Court had rightly noted the landlord-tenant relationship and ownership of the landlord stood established. This does not in any many raise a triable issue.

(3.) THE description of the tenanted shop and the fact that it is adjacent to the bakery shop from where the landlord is carrying on his business has been substantiated in the site plan; it is clear that if the intervening wall between the two shops is broken, the area of the bakery shop will be increased and so also entrance of the shop. THE landlord has specifically pleaded that he has no other commercial shop from where his business activity can be carried out; thus this first shop is required by him bonafide. THE bonafide need of the landlord has been established.