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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) SO far as the first argument that the respondent -landlord is not an owner is concerned, the argument is wholly frivolous because it is not disputed even before this Court that the respondent is the landlord of the suit premises. Once the respondent is admitted to be the landlord of the suit premises, then the petitioner -tenant is estopped from challenging the ownership of respondent -landlord in view of Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.