RAJ KUMAR KHANNA Vs. PARDUMAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present petition under Section 25 B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the petitioner has impugned the order dated 12th July, 2012 passed by the learned ARC (North), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, dismissing the petitioner's application of leave to defend in an eviction petition filed by the respondent against the petitioner in respect of one shop at the Ground Floor of the property no. A 90, Kamla Nagar, Delhi- 110007 wherein the petitioner has been running a Car Driving Training Centre (hereinafter referred to as "the tenanted premises")

(2.) The respondent stated that the suit premises is required bonafidely for him and his son who are running the business of provision/general store in the adjoining shop and the said space is highly insufficient and therefore the goods of the shop are to be placed outside the shop at the footpath and the time of closure of the shop in the evening, the said goods have to be dumped/placed un-systematically due to paucity of space causing damage and financial losses to the business. There is a temporary wall between the tenanted premises and the shop of the respondent and now the respondent wants a bigger shop of modern style after removing the partition wall so that he can establish goodwill in the market. It was also contended that neither him nor his son has any other commercial accommodation available with them in entire Delhi and hence the eviction petition was filed.

(3.) The petitioner however in his leave to defend application contended that he is a senior citizen and a cancer patient. Since the tenanted premises is a very small shop and the only means of earning livelihood for the petitioner, it would cause him hardship if he was asked to vacate the said shop. He contested the claim of bonafide requirement of the property by the respondent stating that the respondent is very rich and wanted to re-let the tenanted premises for higher rent. It was contended that the manner in which the property was required by the respondent had not been clarified by him. It was alleged by the petitioner that the respondent had intentionally concealed his income and accommodation available with him by not placing the balance sheet, income tax records and other relevant documents on record to prove their extent of business and requirement. It was also averred by the petitioner that the respondent was negotiating with a property dealer of that area to re-let after the property was vacated.