PREM CHAND Vs. MADHU RANI AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is filed impugning the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller dated 24.1.2013 which has dismissed the leave to defend application and decreed the eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act for bonafide necessity with respect to the tenanted shop bearing no.94/2, Shankar Market, Railway Road, Shahdara, Delhi-110032 as shown in red colour in the site plan.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner argues the following aspects which according to him not only show that leave to defend should be granted, but, in fact, the eviction petition should be dismissed:-

(3.) When the aforesaid aspects were put to the notice of the counsel for the respondents, hardly any argument of any merit could be urged in response. No argument could be urged in response because admittedly shop no.6 is lying vacant, shop no.1 was let out just a year or so prior to the filing of the eviction petition and finally, it is not believable that a 80 years old lady would suddenly want to open a boutique and that too in a co-owned premises where petitioner no.2/respondent no.2 is the other co-owner and who has simply consented to the alleged need of the petitioner no.1/respondent no.1 in the trial court i.e the landlady. Also, alternative premises in the form of the entire first floor which is admittedly lying vacant is available for carrying on the alleged business of a boutique. In my opinion, if in cases such as the present leave to defend is not granted, more so when probably the petition itself has to be dismissed on account of Section 14(6) of the Act, I fail to understand that in which other case, leave to defend should be granted. The very fact that the Additional Rent Controller had to pass a judgment running into 27 pages (leaving aside about 8 to 9 pages for the defence of the respondent no.4 before the Additional Rent Controller who is no longer now contesting the eviction petition) surely there were triable issues. Detailed judgments passed discussing all the aspects in the facts of the present case, would not be permissible because it would amount to deciding the bonafide disputed questions of fact without trial.