MAN SINGH @ MANNU Vs. MOHD IBRAHIM AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER impugned is the order dated 15.10.2011 vide which the leave to defend application in a pending eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the DRCA) had been dismissed and the eviction petition had been decreed in favour of the landlord. Record shows that the present eviction petition has been filed by the petitioner/landlord Mohd. Ibrahim and Mohd. Yasir against the tenants; the disputed premises is a shop bearing No. S -65, Street 23, Main road Brahampuri opposite Arora Building Material Store, Delhi measuring 8.4 x 11.3 sq. feet from where the tenant is running a dabha. Further contention in the eviction petition is that the premises had been sublet by the tenant to the respondent No. 2 who has also caused damage to the said premises. Contention is that the property in dispute was owned by the grandfather of the petitioner namely Mohd. Ismail; he had purchased this property in terms of a registered sale deed dated 30.7.1966; he dies on 28.10.199 and left behind four sons and his widow; the aforenoted portion is now co -owned by petitioners No. 1 and 2 which includes the disputed premises. After the death of the father of the petitioners No. 1 and 2 which was in the year 1995 and 2007 the petitioners being the only male surviving members of the family had become co -owners; petitioner No. 1 is aged 20 years and petitioner No. 2 is aged 18 years. Petitioners are carrying on work of embroidery, sewing and stitching; they have sewing and embroidery machines but they have no room to accommodate these machines; the premises under the occupation of the respondent are required by them for the purpose of carrying out their work of sewing and embroidery. Eviction petition was accordingly filed.

(2.) LEAVE to defend has been filed. Alleged triable issues have been highlighted. It is pointed out that material facts have been concealed from the court. Petitioners are occupying and using the adjoining shop which has been (depicted in the site plan) measuring 17.6 x10 sq. feet from where they are carrying out the job of manufacturing of embroidery machines in the name of NAVICO; this is very old business of his family which they are carrying out from the aforenoted premises. There is also non -joinder of necessary parties as all the co -owners have not been impleaded petition has been filed malafide with an ulterior motive. These are by and large issues mentioned in the application seeking leave to defend.

(3.) THE landlord is the best judge of his requirement and this has been reiterated by the courts time and again that it is not for the court or the tenant to describe the manner in which the landlord wishes to chalk out his life style or carry out his business.