SHASHI BHUSHAN Vs. ANITA MAHARISHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the judgment and order passed by the Additional Rent Controller dated 30.11.2011 and 28.9.2012. The order dated 28.9.2012 dismisses the review petition filed by the petitioner herein (respondent in the trial court) against the judgment dated 30.11.2011. Actually this petition is therefore really pressed only against a challenge to the main judgment dated 30.11.2011 by which the Additional Rent Controller has dismissed the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner/tenant and has decreed the bonafide necessity eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short the DRC Act ) with respect to the suit/tenanted premises being shop no. 2 on the ground floor of property bearing no. 77A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi-110095.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the respondent/landlady purchased the suit property from the original owner Sh. Gur Dutt by means of usual documents being the agreement to sell, power of attorney, etc dated 7.3.2006. There were earlier proceedings under the DRC Act between the parties and which culminated in the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller on 30.8.2010 whereby the petitioner has been held to be the tenant and the respondent has been held to be the landlord. The present/subject bonafide necessity eviction petition was filed by the respondent/landlady on the ground that she requires the suit/tenanted premises for her husband who wants to start a business. The husband of the respondent/landlady at the time of filing of the eviction petition in the year 2011 was 56 years of age and it was stated that he cannot get any other employment at this stage because he has stopped working with his earlier employer M/s Veera Fragrances Pvt. Ltd. and with whom he was employed.

(3.) The Additional Rent Controller has dismissed the leave to defend application by holding that the respondent is the owner/landlady of the premises and she requires the premises for the bonafide need of her husband and neither she nor her husband has any other suitable alternative accommodation.