MOHINDER KUMAR KHANDELWAL Vs. GULSHAN KUMAR ANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/tenant, Mohinder Kumar Khandelwal has filed the present revision petition under Section 25(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the "DRC Act") against the order dated 13th January, 2012 whereby his application for leave to defend was dismissed in the eviction petition bearing No.E-451/09 filed by the respondent/landlord under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act.

(2.) Brief facts, as recorded in the eviction petition, are that the respondent is the owner of the property bearing No.39-40/2988, Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. He is Senior Citizen aged about 71 years. The petitioner is the tenant in respect of one shop on the ground floor of property No.39/2988, Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 on a plot of land measuring 41.5 Sq. Yards, as shown in red in the site plan (hereinafter referred to as the "Suit Premises").The suit premises was let out for commercial purposes. The shop in question out of the three shops is on the front side and the middle one. The measurement of the tenanted shop is 5.3" x 13". The family of the respondent consists of himself, his wife, one son and his wife who owns the adjoining property. The son and the wife of the respondent are carrying out independent business. The respondent was initially a partner in the firm M/s R.K.Jewellers and after dissolution of the said firm, the respondent is out of the aforesaid firm which was a renowned firm in the market and shifted to a shop in the adjoining property under the ownership of his wife. The wife of the respondent owns the adjoining property but his son is dependent upon the respondent and the family of the respondent does not own any other commercial property in Delhi. The respondent requires the front shop for his showroom as the earlier firm was running its business from the showroom located on the corner of Hardhiyan Singh Road and he is carrying out his business of goldsmith for the last 25 years. The present shop is in the lane and is affecting the business to a great extent. Therefore, the respondent requires the suit premises bonafide for the use of the business/ commercial purposes for himself and other family members dependent on him. A prayer was made for passing the eviction order in respect of the suit premises.

(3.) Upon service, the petitioner/tenant filed the application for leave to defend along with his affidavit wherein it was admitted that the petitioner is a tenant and the respondent is the owner of the suit premises. The respondent is not carrying out any business of goldsmith. In fact, he was a bank employee in Bank of India and had voluntarily retired in December, 2000 after opting VRS owing to his ill-health. The respondent wants to enhance the rent or to sell the suit premises after getting eviction of the petitioner. It was further stated that earlier major portion of the property i.e. marked A, B, C and D in the site plan has been let out by the respondent to various tenants from the year 2000 onwards at the market rate after getting the eviction from earlier tenants. Sh. Loveneesh Duggal is the tenant in shop "A". Smt.Draupdi Devi is the tenant in shop "B". Sh. Jitesh Kumar is the tenant in shop "C" as shown in the site plan of the petitioner. The adjoining property, of which the wife of the respondent is owner, has been let out to various tenants and whatsoever portion remains with the wife is being used for running a jewellery shop and if the respondent requires the suit premises for commercial purposes, then the alternative space is available in the adjoining property of his wife. It was also stated that the major portion of respondent's wife's property i.e. marked E (some portion), E (remaining portion), F and G in the site plan has also been let out to various tenants from the year 2000 onwards at the market rate after getting the eviction of the earlier tenants which shows that the respondent has no bonafide requirement of the suit premises.