BOSCO JOSEPH Vs. RAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision petition under Sec. 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, is directed against the Order dtd. 31/10/2015, passed by the learned SCJ-cum-Rent Controller, Patiala House Courts, Delhi, in Eviction Petition, being E.No.21/2015, dismissing the application filed by the Petitioner herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tenant') for leave to defend and evicting the Tenant from the property bearing Shop No. 16 (admeasuring approximately 160 sq. ft.) with a public Verandah (admeasuring approximately 120 sq. ft.) in front thereof at the address plot No.1, Block No.88, Lady Harding Road, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the tenanted premises').

(2.) The facts, in brief, leading to the instant petition are as under:-

(3.) Mr. Wills Mathews, learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Tenant, submits that though the family of the Tenant took the tenancy of the tenanted premises many years ago, the Petitioner/Tenant has been in occupation of the tenanted premises for more than 16 years now. He states that the Petitioner/Tenant does not have any alternative accommodation and the business that he is running from the tenanted premises is the only source of livelihood for the Tenant whereas the Landlord has about 12 properties in the same locality and two shops in the same market have been kept closed. It is also stated by the learned Counsel for the Tenant that the Landlord is a rich man having a number of properties and over 100 employees and, therefore, the need of the Landlord cannot be said to be bona fide. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the eviction petition was filed by the Landlord without impleading all the LRs of C.D. Joseph, who was the original tenant of the tenanted premises. He relies on the earlier eviction petition, being E.No.42/2009, filed by the mother of the Respondent herein/Landlord against the Petitioner herein and other legal representatives of C.D. Joseph. He states that all the legal representatives of C.D. Joseph were impleaded in the abovementioned petition, however, in the impugned eviction petition the other legal representatives of C. D. Joseph were not made parties. He further submits that the Landlord has suppressed the fact regarding the ownership of the property at Vrindavan. He states that the factum of ownership of the property at Vrindavan was accepted by the Landlord only in his reply to the application for leave to defend filed by the Tenant. He further states that the Landlord has also suppressed the fact about the availability of a basement at shop No.115-117 and, therefore, this itself raises a triable issue and the learned Rent Controller ought not have dismissed the application of the Tenant for leave to defend.