DEVENDER SINGH Vs. GIAN PRAKASH SAINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 25B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) is filed by the petitioner/tenant impugning the judgment of the Rent Controller dated 08.2.2012 by which the Rent Controller has dismissed the application for leave to defend filed by the petitioner/tenant and has decreed the bonafide necessity eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act with respect to the tenanted/suit premises being one room on the first floor of property no.4161, Nai Sarak, Delhi as shown in red colour in the site plan attached with the eviction petition.

(2.) The case as set up by the respondent/landlord in the eviction petition was that he is a chartered accountant and was carrying on his professional work from the premises bearing no.1626, second floor, Street No.33, Naiwala, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-5, and in which he is only a licensee and he requires the suit/tenanted premises for carrying on his professional work. Though in the eviction petition, the respondent/landlord did not give details of the owner of the premises no.1626, it has however now come on record that it is the wife of the respondent/landlord who is the owner of the property no. 1626 in which the respondent/landlord states that he is a licensee. Though the respondent/landlord had pleaded that the licensed premises were to be vacated, however, the basic emphasis of the respondent/landlord for claiming eviction of the petitioner/tenant was on the ground that the property at 1626, Karol Bagh was at a distance of about 12 kms from his residence at IX/2173, Street No.8, Kailash Nagar, Delhi 31 (Trans Yamuna Area) whereas the tenanted/shop premises is at a distance of only about 4 kms from his residence and entailing less travelling time and distance, therefore the same was much more suitable including for the reason that the respondent/landlord suffers from some health problems and has been advised to travel minimum. The respondent/landlord also pleaded that the premises at 1626, Karol Bagh being on the second floor is not suitable to his aged clients and the tenanted/suit premises on the first floor is hence more suitable. Eviction from the tenanted premises is sought not only from the point of view of the location being at a lesser distance from the residence of the respondent/landlord, but also because the main clients of the respondent/landlord are said to be based in and around the Nai Sarak area where the tenanted/suit premises are situated. It is also pleaded that brothers of the respondent/landlord also carry on their business from other portions of the property no.4161, Nai Sarak, Delhi in which the tenanted premises are located, and therefore the respondent/landlord would not have any difficulty to commute to and fro from the tenanted premises as he would be travelling with his brothers.

(3.) The petitioner/tenant contested the eviction petition by filing his leave to defend application. The thrust of the petitioner/tenant for grant of leave to defend was that the eviction petition was not bonafidely filed because the respondent/landlord had concealed the details with respect to who was the licensor of the Karol Bagh premises from where the professional work of a chartered accountant was being carried on. The petitioner/tenant also pleaded that the respondent/landlord in the premises where the tenanted premises are situated owns a shop No. E on the first floor besides other portions on the first floor and and second floor, and which shop and portions are alternative suitable accommodations for the respondent/landlord to carry on his professional work as a chartered accountant.