SAROJ MALIK Vs. O P GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition filed under proviso to Section 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRC Act) impugns an order dated 3.10.2012 whereby the learned ARC has dismissed the petitioner's (tenant's) application for leave to defend and an eviction order has been passed in favour of the respondent (landlord) apropos the tenanted premises i.e. a hall on the ground floor in property bearing no.1188, Gali Babu Ram, Kucha Rati Ram, Delhi.

(2.) Before the learned ARC, it was the case of the landlord that he retired from employment in a bank and had no source of income except his pension; that he wants to start a business but due to paucity of accommodation, unable to do the same; that his grandson along with his mother also want to have their own independent business enterprise but due to paucity of accommodation were unable to do so; that he does not have any alternate suitable accommodation. Therefore, for his bonafide need he sought the vacation of the tenanted premises.

(3.) An application for leave to defend the eviction petition was filed by the tenant wherein it was stated that the landlord had concealed the space available to him on the ground floor i.e., one shop measuring 6 ft x 10 ft and one bed room measuring 8 ft x 10 ft; that the landlord was in possession of first and second floors of the suit property, but those were currently in occupation of tenants; has accommodation at M-39, Greater Kailash Part II where he is residing with his only son but has not made any disclosure about the said property; earns rental income from another godown on the ground floor, which is occupied by a Halwai/Caterer; that the son of the landlord is running a well established business from an office at Kalkaji; that the landlord did not state as to what business he wants to start and what is his source of income; that the landlord has taken a contradictory stand since on one hand he says that he needs the tenanted premises for himself but on the other hand he says that his grandson along with his mother want to do his independent business fromit; that the landlord wants to increase the rent from Rs. 600 to Rs. 6000; and concocted false and frivolous grounds to evict the tenant from the tenanted premises. The tenant filed his own version of the site plan and three photographs to show the accommodation available with the landlord on the ground floor.