KISHAN LAL GUPTA Vs. KEWAL KRISHAN BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Revision Petition has been filed under Sec. 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ?the DRC Act") against the Order dtd. 17/9/2021 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller-02 (Central), Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, in CNR No.DLCT03- 002992/2020, ARC No.311/20, E-98/20 wherein the learned ARC dismissed the Petitioners' application for leave to defend and consequently allowed the eviction petition of the Respondent/landlord herein and directed the Petitioners/tenants to vacate the premises in question i.e. a private shop at front side facing main road in Property No.49, GB Road, Shardha Nand Marg, Delhi-110006.

(2.) The facts, in brief, leading to the filing of the instant petition are that the Respondent/landlord (Petitioner in the eviction petition) had purchased the property in question bearing No.49, GB Road, Shardha Nand Marg, Delhi - 110006 vide a registered Sale Deed dtd. 18/9/2015 executed by the erstwhile owner Sh. Bhusan Raheja. It is stated in the eviction petition that the Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 along with Sh. Pran Nath Gupta and Sh. Om Prakash Gupta were co-tenants in the tenanted shop and all of them were running their businesses from the tenanted shop. However, after the death of the Sh. Pran Nath Gupta and Sh. Om Prakash Gupta, Sh. Ashish Gupta (Petitioner No.3 herein) being the son of Sh. Pran Nath Gupta, and Sh. Abhinav Gupta (Petitioner No.4 herein) being the son of Sh. Om Prakash Gupta occupied the tenanted shop and started carrying out business from the same. It is stated that the Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are carrying out their business as Partners under the name of M/s Rekha Agency, Petitioner No.3 is running his business under the name of M/s Adishakti Enterprises, and Petitioner No.4 is running his business under the name of M/s Technomast in the tenanted shop. It is stated that all the Petitioners herein (Respondents in the eviction petition) are running their businesses by partitioning the tenanted shop without the permission of erstwhile owner as well as the Respondent herein (Petitioner in the eviction petition).

(3.) It is stated in the eviction petition that the Respondent/landlord now requires the tenanted shop bona fidely for his son, namely, Pankaj Bansal, who wants to start his business of electrical/machinery and its parts from the tenanted shop as he is currently employed. It is stated that though the son of the Respondent/landlord was working earlier, he has now left his job and intends to start his own business of electrical/machinery and its parts. Therefore, the Respondent/landlord, wanting to discharge his responsibility as a father, requires the tenanted shop for his son in order for his son to start his own business from the tenanted premises as neither the Respondent/landlord nor does his son have any other commercial property with them besides the said tenanted premises. It is also stated in the eviction petition that since the tenanted shop is situated in the commercial area where the majority of the shops are suitable for the business of electrical/machinery and its parts, and as the Respondent/landlord is having no other commercial property available with him nor does his son has any other property, therefore, the said tenanted shop is required by the Respondent/landlord for his son Pankaj Bansal.