INDERJEET SINGH Vs. HARISH CHANDRA BHUTANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been preferred against the order of the Ld. Additional Rent Controller dated 25.03.2010 whereby the respondent was granted leave to defend the eviction petition filed by the petitioner. The petitioner had filed an eviction petition no. E-283/09 dated 23.11.2009 in respect of shop and godown in property bearing no. 1/810 G.T. Road, Delhi, against the respondent on the ground of bonafide requirement of setting up the business for his son in the suit premises. It was submitted by the petitioner that the suit property was let out to the respondent for commercial purposes which is now required by him for his dependent son. Admittedly, the son of the petitioner carries on the business of mobile phones from a tenanted shop taken on rent at Rs. 3600/- per month. Upon receiving the summons, the respondent filed an application for leave to contest the petition stating that the requirement of the petitioner is not bona fide as his son was financially sound and not dependent on him. The petitioner filed reply to the application to which rejoinder was filed by the respondent. Upon consideration of the averments of the respondent, the ld. ARC granted leave to the respondent to defend the eviction petition.

(2.) The impugned order has been challenged in the present proceedings by the petitioner on the ground that the ld. ARC has wrongly concluded that the petitioner's son was not dependent on him and that the requirement of the petitioner was not bona fide. It has been averred that it was established by the petitioner that his son had been carrying on his business in a rented shop and no other suitable property was available to him from which his son could carry his business and thus the petitioner was entitled to an eviction decree as there was no triable issue established by the respondent.

(3.) On the other hand, the respondent has contended that the order of ld. ARC requires no interference which has been passed after taking into account the triable issues raised by the respondent. It has been submitted that there is discrepancy in the pleas taken up by the petitioner which is evident from the fact that before the trial Court, the rent of the alleged tenanted premises used by the petitioner's son was stated to be Rs. 4000/- per month whereas it has been stated to be Rs 3600/- per month before this Court. It has also been averred that the petitioner has not been consistent in his stand as to who is the payer of the rent of the tenanted shop used by his son. It has been further contended that the petitioner has no locus to file the eviction petition as he is not the sole owner of the premises and the other co-owners have not been joined in the proceedings.