SURINDER SINGH Vs. KULBHUSHAN BALUJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petition arises from an eviction petition filed by the landlord under section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The impugned order dated 27.07.2013 passed by the ADJ - cum -ARC (North and East District), Delhi rejected the petitioners'/tenants' application seeking leave to defend and directed their eviction from the tenanted premises i.e. property No. V -48, Rajouri Gardens, New Delhi. It is stated that for a monthly rent of Rs. 872, the petitioners/tenants run a boutique shop from the premises since 1992.

(2.) THE eviction petition sought vacation of the tenanted premises on the ground that the landlord required the premises to support his family members, who are stated to be dependent on him, and the tenanted premises were specifically required for opening their own garment shop. It was contended that the petitioner was running Service -Station on Military Road, but it was closed down by the Government's pollution control owing to its being located in a non -confirming area. The family of the respondent/ landlord consists of a son and an unmarried daughter apart from himself.

(3.) THE Trial Court was required to look into whether the landlord sought eviction without satisfying the conditions set under section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act. It noted that the contention that the tenant earns his livelihood from the tenanted premises was not a relevant consideration while deciding an eviction petition. It held that in eviction proceedings, the Court needs to look into whether the tenant has brought to the attention of the Court of certain facts which would disentitle the landlord from evicting the tenant. The tenants' comparative hardship or contentions that the tenanted premises is the only source of livelihood does not disentitle the landlord from evicting a tenant. The Delhi Rent Control Act makes no such provision in this regard.