SUKHBIR SINGH Vs. I.P. SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) read with Section 25 B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (herein after referred to as "the Act") against the order dated 15.07.2010 passed by the ld. ARC whereby the eviction petition no. 32/2008, filed by the petitioner under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Act, was dismissed.

(2.) In the said eviction petition, it was submitted by the petitioner that he is the owner and landlord of house no. 1/10784, Subhash Park, Main Road, Naveen Shahdara, Delhi( suit premises) and the respondent is his tenant in two shops ( suit shops) situated at the ground floor of the suit property, which were converted into one big shop. It is submitted by the petitioner that the ground floor of the suit premises consisting of the suit shop faces the main road and, towards the west of the shop, there is a passage of approximately three feet leading to the rear portion of the building. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a milk trader and used to do the business from the rear portion of the suit premises, where his buffaloes and cows were also kept. But, due to old age, pain in the joints and foul smell of excreta of cows and buffaloes, and change in law related to keeping of cows and buffaloes, he was forced to stop his business of milk vending. It is further submitted that he now intended to do the business of milk and milk products from the suit shop and hence it is required by him bonafidely for himself. It is also averred that the respondent tenant has built up a three storey house, just opposite the suit premises, and is running a clinic as well as a pathology lab from the ground floor of his own house, and he no longer required the suit shop.

(3.) The respondent tenant, upon being granted leave to defend, filed his written statement wherein preliminary objection is raised by him that the petitioner had sufficient accommodation at his disposal and there is no bonafide requirement of the suit shop by him. The respondent tenant gave details of five properties alleging these to be owned by the petitioner landlord. His averments in this regard are as follows: