MOHD BURHAN Vs. TRILOKI NATH NIRMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This eviction petition is filed under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short 'the Act') impugning the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 18.2.2013 by which the Additional Rent Controller has dismissed the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner/tenant and has passed an eviction decree with respect to the tenanted premises being shop no. E-45/1 on the ground floor of E-45 Main Market, Hauz Khas, New Delhi 110016 admeasuring 12'.7' 1/2" x 9'ft plus the extended verandah as per site plan annexed.

(2.) The respondent/landlord claimed that he was running the business of blue line buses in Delhi, however, the blue line buses in Delhi have stopped on account of various directions passed by the State Transport Authority and the Supreme Court, and therefore, since this business of running buses having come to an end, he needs a suit property from which he intends to start a General Merchant shop. It is stated in the eviction petition that he has no other alternative suitable commercial/shop premises and therefore the premises with the petitioner/tenant is required for carrying on business.

(3.) On being served with the summons, the petitioner filed the leave to defend application. The relationship of landlord and tenant is not disputed. What is disputed is the existence of bonafides of the respondent/landlord in filing the bonafide necessity eviction petition. Petitioner-tenant pleads that respondent/landlord is having the business of blue line buses as also other buses on private routes whereby he is earning a substantial amount. It is also pleaded that the respondent/landlord is carrying on a property dealing business under the name and style of Nath Properties and Developers. It is also pleaded that the respondent/landlord was negotiating with the petitioner/tenant just about a month before filing of the eviction petition to increase the rent, but subsequently this petition has been filed when negotiations for increase of rent failed. The petitioner/tenant also pleads that respondent/landlord has sufficient alternative suitable accommodation inasmuch as the property is a three storeyed building and on the second floor till recently a software company in the name of Maxwell Computers was carrying on business, and which tenant has vacated the second floor portion. It is also argued that the bonafide necessity petition is malafide because respondent/landlord had concealed the facts as regards his income with respect to his wife who is also having business of blue line buses as also other private buses. It was hence pleaded that the eviction petition was liable to be dismissed. Though other pleas had been urged before the Additional Rent Controller but those other pleas are not urged before this Court.