MOHD IMTIYAZ Vs. MOHD NASEEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these petitions under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') challenging the impugned order dated 23.7.2012 of the Additional Rent Controller dismissing the leave to defend applications can be disposed of by this common judgment as the landlord in both the cases is the same and who is the respondent herein, and, the need prayed in the eviction petitions is also common i.e for the son of the respondent/landlord Mohd. Jafar who is unemployed and not doing any job, and therefore the need for the suit/tenanted premises.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, reference is being made to the facts of the RC. REV.No.594/2012.

(3.) The respondent/landlord filed the subject eviction petition for bonafide necessity under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act for eviction of the petitioner/tenant from the tenanted room on the ground floor with common latrine and bathroom in property bearing no. AB-430, Amar Puri, Nabi Karim, New Delhi on the ground that the respondent/landlord has a son namely Mohd. Jafar who as of date is about 23 years of age and not doing any job, and therefore the respondent/tenant needs the tenanted premises as a shop for his son to start his business. The respondent/landlord pleaded that he has no other alternative suitable accommodation/commercial premises for his son to carry on his business. The respondent/landlord also pleaded that the expenditure of his family is increasing, and therefore he needs his son Mohd. Jafar to start his business and earn money so as to meet the family expenses.