ASHOK KUMAR SARNA Vs. AMAN GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 06.09.2012 whereby the respondent's petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short 'the Act') was allowed and the petitioner has been ordered to be evicted from the suit premises, being one shop on the ground floor forming part of property bearing No.1565/30, Naiwala, Karol Bagh, New Delhi -110 005.

(2.) THE leave to defend was denied to the petitioner on the ground that it made out no triable issues. The landlord and tenant relationship was admitted since the tenant was depositing rent under Section 27 of the Act in the name of the eviction petitioner as the landlord. The property was required on the grounds that: the petitioner had no source of income; was unemployed and neither engaged in any business or profession; had no other shop or premises to run his business; his mother was an aged lady not working anywhere and she was solely dependent upon him. Therefore, there was a bona fide ground for eviction of the tenant from the premises to run a shop there from.

(3.) HAVING considered the submission of the parties this Court is of the view that it is untenable for the tenant to say that the second floor premises if and when available, would be suitable to the petitioner. It is settled law that the bonafide need has to be tested in presenti; and because the need requires to be fulfilled urgently a provision for meeting the requirement cannot be in futuro. Immediate needs require immediate solutions. That is why the legislative scheme provides a summary procedure to deal with cases of bonafide requirement. Even otherwise, the Trial Court held that first and second floors of the premises were residential in nature therefore they could not be used for commercial purpose. The Trial Court relied upon the judgment of this Court in Rajender Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. Leela Wati & Ors. 155 (2008) DLT 383 which held that in the context of alternative accommodation mere assertion by the tenant apropos the eviction -petitioner being the landlord of other properties could not be considered sufficient for grant of leave to defend; only those averments in the affidavit were to be considered by the Rent Controller which had substance in it supported by some material.