AMARJIT SINGH AND ORS. Vs. SULTAN AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition impugns an order dated 03.07.2012, dismissing the petitioner's application for leave to defend under Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') and under Order 11 Rules 1 & 2 CPC. The respondent's petition under Section 14(1) (e) of the Act seeking eviction of the tenant from shop bearing No. 870, Nai Sarak, Delhi -110006 on, was allowed and the eviction order was passed.

(2.) THE petitioner/tenant contends that the application for leave to defend ought to have been allowed for the following grounds, that: -

(3.) THIS Court notes that the Trial Court had addressed each of the aforesaid arguments in detail and found none of them raised triable issues, warranting grant of leave to defend. It concluded that except for bald averments, no details of any properties had been mentioned in the application seeking leave to defend, which could be said to be suitable alternate accommodation being available to the landlord to meet his bona fide requirement. On the basis of record the Trial Court found that the relationship of landlord and tenant has been admitted by the tenant in the application for leave to defend itself; that the landlord having a superior right than the tenant and his having shown his bona fide need, the landlord was entitled to an order for eviction under Section 14(1) (e) read with Section 25B of the Act. A careful reading of the aforesaid seven (7) points would reveal that they can be clubbed under three broad heads, i.e., (i), (ii) & (iii), regarding the power of attorney; (v) regarding the petitioners' lack of ownership of the suit premises and (iv) and (vii) that there was no bona fide requirement of the landlord in view of his advanced age and infirm health.