VIJAY KUMAR AHLUWALIA Vs. BISHAN CHAND MAHESWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS rent control revision petition is filed under Section 25 -B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the impugned judgment of the Additional Rent Controller dated 13.8.2012 by which the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner/tenant has been dismissed and the eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act for bonafide necessity has been decreed with respect to one shop on the ground floor of the property bearing no. 1548/V, Nai Sarak, Delhi -06 as shown in red colour in the site plan annexed alongwith the eviction petition.

(2.) THE eviction petition for bonafide necessity was filed by the respondent no.1/landlord stating that he had retired from Government service/Northern Railways in the year 2002 and thereafter he has not been doing any job and wants to do business. It was prayed that the tenanted premises are required by the respondent no.1 for doing the business of cloth inasmuch as respondent no.1 wants to open such independent business, but he has no accommodation available to start his business. So far as the portion on the first floor above the tenanted premises is concerned, the same was said to be in occupation of the son of the respondent no.1/landlord Sh. Vivek Maheshwari, and who is doing the business of cloth from the first floor in the name of M/s Balaji Fashion. The second floor of the property was/is being used by both the sons of the petitioner for godown purposes. On the third floor there is one room and which is used by the customers of both sons who come for business. Therefore, except the suit tenanted shop there is no other premises in which business can be carried on by the respondent no.1/landlord and accordingly a petition for bonafide necessity was filed. Respondent no.1 is the adopted son of Sh. Miri Mal and Smt. Ram Piari who owned the entire property no. 1548/V.

(3.) A reading of the leave to defend application shows that there is no denial ie no challenge is raised to the same, that the son of respondent no.1 Mr. Vivek Maheshwari is not using the first floor above the tenanted premises for doing the business of M/s Balaji Fashion. In the leave to defend application, it is only alleged that the adjoining premises bearing no. 1547 are owned by the respondent no.1 and his sons including Mr. Vivek Maheshwari which premises are available to the respondent no.1. Also, in the eviction petition the respondent no. 1 specifically stated, and which aspect is not challenged in the leave to defend application, that the respondent no.1 with his adoptive mother Smt. Ram Piari had filed an eviction petition against another tenant Mr. Meghraj, and which proceedings were contested on right till the Supreme Court and possession of the shop with Meghraj was given to the respondent no.1 and on this shop on the ground floor another son of respondent no.1 is carrying on the business of sarees under the name and style of M/s Aarti Saree Emporium, meaning thereby there is no challenge to the fact that the respondent no.1 is the owner -landlord.