(1.) The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner ('Tenant'), impugning the order dtd. 26/9/2022 passed by the learned CCJ acting as the Additional Rent Controller, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi ('Trial Court') in E-148/2019, whereby the Tenant's application seeking leave to defend has been dismissed and the eviction petition filed by the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 ('Landlords') under Sec. 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ('DRC Act') has been allowed.
(2.) The eviction petition was filed by the Landlords in the year 2019 on the plea that their son, Mr. Kartik Garg, who has recently graduated in the year 2018 and is aged about 21 years requires the tenanted premises to start his business of sale/purchase of hardware and paint items. It was stated in the petition that there was no other alternative suitable accommodation available. The petition was resisted by the Tenant, who sought leave to defend and opposed the prayers as made by the Landlords on the plea of availability of suitable alternate accommodation.
(3.) In the present proceedings as well, learned counsel for the Petitioner, tenant, states that the Landlords are admittedly the joint owners of the ground floor of the property bearing no. 10944/4, Dori Walan, Mandir Road, Sabzi Bazar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi - 110005 ('subject property'). He states that the Landlords already have in their possession two shops, out of which one shop is being used by the Respondent No. 1, Landlord, wherein he is carrying out his wholesale kiryana business ('Shop No. 1'); and in the second shop the Landlords' son, Mr. Kartik Garg, is carrying on a business of property dealing under the name and style of Garg Properties ('Shop No. 2'). He further, states that during the pendency of these proceedings, an area on the rear side of the subject property marked as a godown in the site plan and admeasuring 8' X 7.6' ('godown'), also became available to the Landlords herein, as the Respondent No. 2, Landlady, succeeded in a separate eviction petition filed for recovery of possession of the said godown. It is stated that the possession of the said godown was recovered on 23/3/2021 by the Respondent No. 2, Landlady, however, this fact was not disclosed to the Trial Court.