OM PRAKASH JAIN Vs. ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE impugned judgment is dated 06.09.2010; the application filed by the tenant seeking leave to defend in pending eviction proceedings under Section 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) had been dismissed.

(2.) RECORD shows that an eviction petition had been filed by the landlord Ashok Kumar Jain against his tenant Om Prakash Jain seeking eviction of this tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement from the suit premises bearing No. 5193-94, Main Road, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. The averments in the eviction petition discloses that the petitioner has a family comprising of himself, his wife and two married sons Sharad and Amit both of them are residing with him; the petitioner is running his business from shop No. 4341, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi which is a rented accommodation; he has no other alternate premises except the aforenoted tenanted premises which are tenanted out to the tenant. His elder son Sharad is married since 2001 and is having two sons; he is working as a commission agent; he also supplies various items such as cloth, dhoop and agarbati; premises are required for the business of his son in order that he can have a separate working place; there is no accommodation which is suitable to carry out the business activity of Sharad; his son is completely dependent upon him for his need for accommodation. Further contention is that the suit premises are owned by the petitioner; they were in joint occupation with Nirmal Jain who has since died and now the petitioner is the sole owner.

(3.) CORRESPONDING paras of the reply have been filed. It is denied that Jaswant Singh was in no manner connected with the suit property; it has been reiterated that the petitioner is the sole owner of the suit property; it is also an admitted fact that the tenant has been paying rent to the present petitioner; the brother of the petitioner Nirmal Jain had died in 2000 and thereafter the petitioner has become the sole owner of this property and after his death vide letter dated 27.06.2000, the tenant has been paying rent to the petitioner.