SITA Vs. VIKRAM WASANDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGMENT impugned before this Court is the order dated 30.09.2011 whereby the eviction petition filed by the landlord under Section 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) seeking eviction of his tenant from the shop bearing No. V-2430, ground floor, Budshah Bulla, Chawri Bazar, Delhi had been decreed in his favour; the application seeking leave to defend filed by the tenant had been dismissed.

(2.) RECORD shows that the present eviction petition has been filed by three petitioners; premises have been tenanted out to Laxmi Narayan; during his lifetime with the consent of the parties, Mool Chand his son was substituted as the tenant and the tenancy with Mool Chand continued till it was terminated vide a legal notice dated 15.05.2010. Contention of the petitioner being that the premises in question are being used by the tenant for carrying out the business of wedding cards; rate of rent was `100/- per month; the petitioners are stated to be the owners/landlords of the disputed premises. Petitioner No. 1 require the tenanted shop for his separate business of paper and allied services; presently petitioner No. 1 is doing the business of paper trading with petitioner No. 2 from a rented office bearing No. 210, first floor of premises No. 5/2389, Chatta Shahji, Chawri Bazar, Delhi for which they are paying a rent of `480/- per month. Petitioner No. 1 wants to start his business and as such he requires this present accommodation which is suitable for his needs. In the eviction petition, it has been detailed that the petitioners have some other shops including shops bearing No. V- 2429, V-2429-A and V-2431; these shops are located on the ground floor; shops No. 2382 & 2384 are on the first floor and shop No. 2385 is also owned by the petitioners but all these shops are with the other tenants. Further contention is that petitioner No. 1 has relevant experience for the said business for the last about 7-8 years and he now wishes to start his own business and no longer wants to remain in partnership with petitioner No. 2. Petition was accordingly filed.

(3.) ORALLY it has been submitted that the landlord has about 40 shops which have not been disclosed; admittedly this does not find mentioned in the pleadings i.e. in the application for leave to defend; this submission cannot be gone into and even otherwise, the details of the said 40 shops have not been disclosed by the petitioner.