RAMESH KUMAR Vs. NEELAMDAWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition impugns an order dated 01.11.2013 which dismissed the petitioner's (tenant's) application for leave to contest the eviction petition filed by the respondent under Sections 14(1)(e) and 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). The Trial Court found that the application did not disclose any triable issue for granting the leave. Accordingly an eviction order was passed in respect of tenanted premises being Shop No. 325, Punjabi Bazar, Kotla Mubarkapur, New Delhi -3.

(2.) THE eviction -petitioner had sought the tenant's eviction from the shop/tenanted premises for bona fide need on the following grounds: i.e., that he was due for retirement and needed to settle his married son for earning a livelihood for himself, his wife and his children; that the second and third petitioners too needed their own respective places for their own separate business; the second petitioner's employment yielded an income which was too meagre for his family of four: i.e., a wife and two children; the third petitioner who too was in a leased accommodation did not have a steady source of income for his family comprising of his wife and two children, besides being constantly under a palpable uncertainty and threat of being evicted by his landlord at any point of time. The eviction -petitioners claimed that that they had no other reasonably suitable commercial accommodation anywhere else in Delhi and needed the suit premises bonafidely for themselves and the dependent members of their families.

(3.) AFTER considering the pleadings and arguments, the Trial Court found that the respondent had sought leave to contest essentially on the following three grounds: (i) that the eviction petitioners were neither the owners not landlords of the premises, thus, there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between them and the Will through which they claimed title was a document of fraud; (ii) there was no bonafide need of the premises and (iii) in any case, they had suitable alternate accommodation.