ASHOK KUMAR Vs. PRAVEEN KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition impugns an eviction order dated 15.7.2013 passed by the Additional Rent Controller (Central) in an eviction petition filed by the respondent/landlord under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the "DRC Act"). The landlord had petitioned for vacation of the premises, being shop No.9813, Ahata Thakur Dass, Sarai Rohilla, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "suit premises") on the ground that he was unemployed and not gainfully engaged to earn a living, therefore he required the shop for starting a general/kirana store in the tenanted premises, particularly, because it is located near the Sarai Rohilla Railway Station which is merely 50 feet away from his residence, hence the tenanted premises would be eminently suitable for his proposed business. The landlord had further submitted that he had no other reasonable or suitable accommodation for his proposed business. His case was that he had purchased the suit premises from its owner and landlord, Shri K.K. Jain, along with one Shri Mukesh Sharma by registered Sale Deed dated 18.1.2006. Later on, he purchased the undivided share of Shri Mukesh Sharma through a registered Sale Deed dated 31.7.2012.

(2.) The tenant is admittedly the sole surviving legal heir of one Shri Desh Raj in a tenancy created prior to 1947. In his leave to defend application, the tenant had contended that the eviction-petitioner was neither the owner nor the landlord of the suit premises since he could not have gained any right in the property from Shri K.K. Jain through the alleged Sale Deed either in his favour or through Shri Mukesh Sharma because the property was self-acquired by one Shri Thakur Dass who bequeathed it to Shri Jahangir Chand without any right to sell, mortgage or create any charge in the suit premises, therefore, the alleged sale by Shri Jahangir Chand to Shri K.K. Jain itself was illegal and in the absence of any right having been transferred legitimately to Shri K.K. Jain, the latter could not transfer or bestow any better right upon the eviction-petitioner or to Shri Mukesh Sharma. Additionally, the tenant argued that since the evictionpetitioner had acquired the undivided share of Shri Mukesh Sharma only on 31.7.2012, the eviction petition would not be maintainable by virtue of Section 14(6) of the DRC Act which bars the filing of an eviction petition on the ground of bona fide need, unless a period of five (5) years have elapsed from the date of such acquisition. The tenant further argued that the eviction petition did not disclose the complete facts of the case inasmuch as the eviction-petitioner's wife owned two properties being property No.9820-A (part), Sarai Rohilla, Amrik Ganj, Ahahta Thakur Dass, New Rohtak Road, Delhi admeasuring 64.4 sq.yds and a shop on the ground floor of property bearing No.9812, Sarai Rohilla, Amrik Ganj, Ahahta Thakur Dass, New Rohtak Road, Delhi. The tenant had argued that the evictionpetitioner was already running a general store from the aforesaid shop and residing on the first floor above it. Additionally, it was contended that the eviction-petitioner was running a hotel/restaurant/dhaba from property No.9812, and that the eviction petitioner was the owner of certain other properties. However, no details of such other properties were furnished.

(3.) In reply, the eviction-petitioner had controverted the submissions of the tenant and submitted that the properties owned by his wife were occupied by tenants, namely Giriraj and Pawan Kumar. The rent receipts in original with regard to both the properties were filed.