KULDEEP SHARMA Vs. MOOL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present petition under Section 25 B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the petitioner challenges the orders dated 19th May, 2012 and 27th May, 2013.

(2.) The respondent had filed an eviction petition under Section 14 (1)(e) of the Act against the petitioner for recovery of possession of the tenanted shop i.e. a shop forming part of the property bearing municipal No. 229 situated at Karkardooma, Delhi which was let out in July 1993, on the ground that the same is required bonafidely for himself as well as for his three married sons being unemployed and having no other shop anywhere else in Delhi for their business activity. It was stated by the respondent that the shop adjacent to the tenanted shop was in the exclusive possession of his second son who has been running a Dhaba there for the last about 7 years.

(3.) Leave to defend application was allowed in the matter. The petitioner in his written statement contended that there was no bonafide requirement as alleged by the respondent and in fact the respondent has sufficient source of income for maintaining himself and his wife; all the sons of the respondent are residing at separate floors in the four storey building and have earnings of their own for maintaining their wives and children apart from that of the respondent's. it was contended that there are three shops in the remaining portion of the ground floor of the property in question out of which only one is under the tenancy of the petitioner and the other adjacent shop is being run by the respondent himself as 'Dhaba', the sons of the respondent sometimes help and support the respondent in the said Dhaba; that the third shop in the said property was earlier given on rent to the Congress party for office but the same had been taken back and was now under the locks and key of the respondent and certain renovations had been carried out therein to convert it into a room. It was also contended that the property bearing No. 234 Karkardooma, Delhi was earlier in the name of the respondent but he transferred the same in the name of his wife and that the ground floor, first and the second floor of this property bearing No. 234 have been let out to different tenants and the wife of the respondent is earning a good sum as rent from these let out premises at property No. 234.