RAJIV SINDHWANI Vs. KISHAN CHAND SAINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The impugned judgment is dated 08.02.2011; the eviction petition filed by the landlord had been decreed; the application seeking leave to defend had been dismissed.

(2.) Record shows that the present eviction petition has been filed by the landlord Kishan Chand Saini against the tenant Sant Lal under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA); premises are described as a shop forming part of property No. 1566, Tulla Nagar, Gurudwara Road, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi as depicted in red colour in the site plain; rent was Rs. 80/- per month excluding other charges; grounds of bonafide requirement had been pleaded; contention of the landlord was that the petitioner has two sons and one daughter who are dependent upon him for their subsistence; the elder son Chander Shekhar is doing his own business and residing separately; the second Shashi Kant who is about 36 years old is out of job; the daughter of the petitioner is a divorcee and is residing with the petitioner. The petitioner has no other shop from where he can carry on his business for the purpose of livelihood; contention being that he has been compelled to run his own small work from a small pavement of about 2'X2' ft. Shashi Kant the second son of the petitioner also needs this shop from where he can run a business; he is unemployed; present premises are required to start a business for Shashi Kant as also for the petitioner himself as the petty work which is being carried out by him from the MCD payment is more than often removed by the MCD officials.

(3.) An application seeking leave to defend had been filed by the tenant. Averments made therein have been perused. The first contention was that the premises are commercial premises and cannot be the subject matter of a petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRCA. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court Satyawati Sharma (Dead) by LRs. Vs. Union of India, 2008 148 DLT 705. this argument has not been pressed any further. The bone of contention and the only argument urged by learned counsel for the tenant before this Court is that the need of the landlord is not bonafide; he is a rich man; this property is located in 100 square yards of plot; the landlord is residing on the second floor; the first floor is also being used by the landlord for his business of motor repairing and rewinding under the name and style of 'Winder's India'. The landlord has also a shop on the ground floor from where the same business has been carried out by him. The size of the family of the landlord has not been disputed. It is stated that both the sons have separate business and they are well settled in life; it is not in dispute that the daughter is a divorcee but it is stated that she is employed; the petitioner is also more 68 years of age and cannot start a new business because of health conditions; present petition has been filed only to extract higher rate of rent from the petitioner.