ARJUN RAI BHAYANA Vs. SANTOSH HANS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against the order dated 8th January, 2013 passed by the ARC (North West), Rohini, Delhi in an eviction petition filed by the respondent against the petitioner, whereby the leave to defend application of the petitioner was dismissed.

(2.) THE respondent filed an eviction petition against the petitioner in respect of two shops bearing No.3 and 4 in property bearing No.3397 A, Mahindra Park, Shakur Basti, New Delhi 34 (hereinafter referred to as "the suit premises") on the ground of her bonafide requirement as per the provisions of Section 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act. It was stated by the respondent that Respondents family comprises of herself, her husband, two daughters of whom one is married and a married son. The son of the respondent who had been assisting his father in business at a shop in Kamla Nagar, after his marriage in December, 2010 has a family of his own and the respondent wanted her son to start his own business. So for starting an independent business for her son, she required the suit premises, also because they had no other alternative accommodation to do so. It was contended by the respondent that petitioner is a habitual defaulter in payment of rent. Also, earlier the petitioner was running a photography shop at the suit premises but now it is lying locked. It was also contended by the respondent that even earlier an eviction petition under Section 14(1) (a) and (j) of the Act was filed against the petitioner whereby relief under Section 14(1) (a) of the Act was granted but relief under Section 14(1) (j) of the Act was dismissed since the petitioner was given the benefit under Section 14(2) of the Act after payment of rent.

(3.) IN her reply to the leave to defend application, the respondent contended that the properties so mentioned by the petitioner were owned by her father and brother and she was not the owner of either of the properties. She further contended that at the time of inception of tenancy, a separate electricity meter was installed and she had no control over the electricity connection of the suit premises. The same was disconnected due to non payment of electricity dues. In the rejoinder, the petitioner denied the averments and reiterated the contents of the application for leave to defend.