YASH PAL Vs. GOPAL SINGH NIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS rent control revision petition is filed under Section 25 -B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 impugning the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller dated 14.2.2011 by which the Additional Rent Controller has dismissed the application for leave to defend and passed on order of eviction. It needs to be noted that only a period of six months time is granted to vacate the suit premises after eviction order is passed, however, after more than three and half years of passing of the impugned judgment, petitioner continues to stay in the suit premises in view of the interim order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court on 1.8.2011. The subject petition for bona fide necessity was filed by the respondent against the petitioner with respect to one shop having private No. 5(87 -A/5) of premises 87 -A, Kundan Nagar, Street No. 1, Delhi -110092. The respondent -landlord claimed the suit premises for the reason that he is an Advocate and needed the tenanted premises to open his office in the suit premises which is right below the respondent's residence which is at the first floor of the property. Earlier, the respondent -landlord was carrying on his professional work from the garage, but, now respondent is using the garage for parking his car.

(2.) THE petitioner/tenant contested the petition by filing leave to defend application and following grounds were urged before this Court for setting aside of the impugned order: -

(3.) EVEN the second argument urged that the respondent is not a practicing Advocate is totally without any substance for various reasons. Firstly, the respondent has filed in the Court his membership number of the Shahdara Bar Association. It is only because of this that the respondent stands allotted chamber No. E -705 in the Karkardooma Courts. In fact, the petitioner -tenant is guilty of blowing hot and cold by stating that the respondent is not a practicing Advocate allegedly although it is simultaneously stated that he has been allotted a chamber in the Karkardooma Courts. Also, the petitioner -tenant cannot insist that a person who wants to practice as an Advocate should not have a office, that too at a place just below his residence, on the ground that he is not practicing because if this argument is accepted then a new Advocate who is not practicing will not be allowed to evict the tenant so that he would have a practice or for increasing his practice. In my opinion, for being a successful Advocate or being a practicing Advocate, having many cases is not a pre -condition for seeking eviction of a tenant from a shop from where the respondent -landlord as an Advocate wants to commence/carry on his professional work, and which shop/tenanted premises is situated just below the premises of the respondent -landlord. The second argument urged on behalf of the petitioner is also rejected.