SURAJ PRAKASH Vs. RAM PHAL YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against the order dated 5th July, 2011 passed by ARC (Central), Delhi, dismissing the leave to defend application of the petitioners in respect of the shop bearing No. 8649, Gali No. 14 B, Shidi Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the tenanted premises").

(2.) Brief facts for the purpose of adjudication of the present petition are that the respondent filed the eviction petition against the petitioners stating that he bonafidely requires the tenanted premises mainly, for his son, Nagendra Yadav, who has completed LL.B., to use it as a lawyer's chamber. It was stated that besides the said son, respondent had three sons who were married and had children. It was stated that the respondent and all his family members are residing in the upper floor of the said property and that they had no separate space for lawyer's chamber. It was also stated that the tenanted premises was used as an authorized ration shop by the tenant, i.e. husband of petitioner No.1 and father of the petitioner Nos. 2-3, and after his death, the same is lying locked.

(3.) In the leave to defend application, it was stated that though the respondent is the landlord, he is not the owner of tenanted premises. It was also averred that besides the tenanted premises, the respondent was the owner and in possession of shop Nos. 8646, 8647 and 8650, of which the shop Nos. 8647 and 8650 were lying closed. It was also averred that the respondent had let out various other rooms on rent for commercial activities. It was contended that the first and second floors of the property Nos. 8645 to 8650 were under the occupation of the respondent, being used by him for residential purposes and his son Nagendra Yadav was also using various portion thereof for his commercial purposes. It was also contended that besides these the respondent had a number of other properties, numbers of which were given in the leave to defend application. It was contended that it was after the refusal for payment of higher rent to the respondent that the respondent had stopped accepting the monthly rent from the petitioner.