NARENDER KAUR Vs. MAHESH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been preferred under Section 25 B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (herein after referred to as "Act") against the order dated 26.07.2011 passed by the learned ACJ cum ARC (North), whereby the application filed by the petitioners-tenants seeking leave to contest eviction petition no. 52/2009, was dismissed and accordingly an eviction order was passed in favour of the respondent-landlord.

(2.) THE respondent-landlord had filed the abovementioned eviction petition in respect of shop no. 5871(tenanted shop) , forming part of suit property no. 19 A, U.A. Jawahar Nagar, Delhi on the ground of bonafide requirement as provided under Section 14 (1)(e) of the Act. It was submitted by the respondent in the eviction petition that he is a Karta and member of HUF Mahesh Chand & Sons and had purchased the suit property in the year 1975 and after retiring as Additional District Judge from RHJS had started practicing as an advocate at Delhi High Court. It was further stated by the landlord that the tenanted shop was let out to Sohan Singh at a rent of Rs. 200/- p.m. and after his death the tenanted shop was in occupation of his daughter-in-law Narender Kaur (present petitioner) who was not an authorized tenant. It was also submitted by him that he was currently sharing the office of M/s Harish Chandra (India) Ltd., a contractor and engineers company at 113/ A, Kamla Nagar and the same was not suitable for his legal practice, and hence the tenanted shop was required by him for meeting his bonafide requirement of office space. A legal notice dated 26.05.2008 was served on the petitioner, terminating the tenancy. The petitioner responded to the legal notice vide reply dated 24.06.2008, but refused to vacate the tenanted shop. It was lastly submitted by the respondent- landlord that the adjacent shops are also required by him and for which separate petitions were being filed by him.

(3.) THE order granting eviction order to the respondent has been challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant on the ground that the findings of the learned Rent Controller are not according to the law and the grounds taken before the learned Trial Court have been reiterated. Lastly, it has been submitted that eviction petition is misconceived and was filed with the ulterior motive of getting the property vacated and for letting out at higher rent by the landlord.