RAMESH CHAND AGARWAL Vs. MUNSHI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition under Section 25 -B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is filed by the petitioners/landlords impugning the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 12.9.2012 by which the Additional Rent Controller has granted leave to defend to the respondent/tenant to contest the petition for bonafide necessity under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act filed by the petitioners/landlords.

(2.) THE facts as pleaded by the petitioners/landlords for seeking eviction of the respondent/tenant from one shop on the ground floor of the property bearing no.4098 -4099, near Nai Sarak, Chawri Bazar, Delhi -6 (as shown in red colour in the site plan annexed along with the eviction petition) were that the petitioner no.1/landlord needed the tenanted premises to expand his business and also to settle his two sons in separate businesses.

(3.) BEFORE proceeding with the merits of the matter, I would at this stage seek to refer to the judgment passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 01.10.2012 in RC.REV.No.1/2012 titled as Ramesh Chander Agarwal & Anr. Vs. Jagan Nath & Anr. and RC.REV.No.2/2012 titled as Ramesh Chander Agarwal & Anr. Vs. Sandeep Kumar Babbar & Anr. By this judgment the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed similar petitions which were filed by the present petitioners/landlords against the order dated 17.8.2011 of the Additional Rent Controller granting leave to defend to the other tenants of the same building. It is relevant to note that the facts pleaded in the eviction petitions which were filed against the other two tenants by the present petitioners/landlords are almost verbatim, i.e., more or less/identical, to the facts as pleaded in the present case viz the requirement of the petitioner no.1/landlord to expand his business and the need of the petitioner no.1/landlord to establish his two sons in business.