BEENA RANI Vs. RAJ KUMAR CHOPRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the 'Act') is directed against the order dated 23.04.2010 of Addl. Rent Controller (ARC), dismissing the leave to defend application of the petitioners, in the eviction petition filed against them by the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioners are the tenants in respect of one room and verandah on the first floor of property bearing No. 168, Gaffar Maket, Karol Bagh. The said premises was let out to the petitioners for commercial purpose. Their eviction was sought by the respondents on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted shop by them for their business purposes. It was the respondents' case that they are three brothers and are running their business in the name and style of M/s. Chopra Jewellers on the ground floor of property 168, Gaffar Market since April, 1998. Prior to them, their father Late Sh. D.R.Chopra was doing the same business since 1954 in the same premises. M/s. Chopra Jewellers is the partnership firm of three brothers and they are dealing in business of gold jewellery, ornaments, sale and repair. From a portion of the ground floor of the same shop, their family members Rajesh, Sanjeev and Anita are also running one more business, in partnership, under the name of style of M/s. Chopra Sons Silver Mart since 1986. The accommodation of this ground floor shop measures 23.5 sq. mtr. It was the case of the respondents that this accommodation, available with them, is not at all sufficient to meet the requirements of both the firms, and it was extremely insufficient for them to accommodate the partners of the two firms, as also their employees and the customers. For convenience of businesses, they have given two numbers being 168 and 168-A to this shop. It was averred that the present accommodation with them being insufficient, one of the two firms will be shifted from the ground floor to the first floor tenanted shop.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the respondents, and being conscious of the fact of the extent and scope of revisional powers of this court under Section 25-B (8) of the Act, which is unlike of Appellate Court, I have examined the material on record, including the impugned order. The pleas that it was M/s. Chopra Jewellers, who was the owner/landlord, and not the respondents, as the Will of their father D.R.Chopra was not probated, are all untenable. Undisputedly, the tenancy was created by virtue of rent agreement dated 7.7.1971 between the predecessors of the petitioners and the predecessors of the respondents. The respondents have placed on record the rent receipts in respect of the tenanted shop, which are not in dispute. Undisputedly, the petitioners have also been depositing rent in the name of the respondents under Section 27 of the Act. There cannot be any dispute that obtaining of probate of a Will in respect of the immovable property is not mandatory in Delhi. Reference in this regard can be made to Pamela Manmohan Singh Vs. State, 2000 RLR 137.