NARENDER KUMAR JAIN Vs. R.S. SEWAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition filed under Section 25 -B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ("Act"), challenging the order of 9th September, 2013 of the learned ACJ -cum -CCJ -cum -ARC(E), Karkardooma Courts ("impugned order"). By the impugned order, the learned ARC dismissed the application of the petitioner -tenant ("tenant") seeking leave to defend and passing an order of eviction against the tenant in Eviction Petition No. E -113 of 2012. The dispute can be traced back to an eviction petition filed by the respondent -landlord ("landlord") before the learned ARC, wherein the landlord sought eviction of the tenant from the suit property - a shop - on the grounds of his bona fide requirement. The case of the landlord, who was himself an advocate of about 80 years of age, was that he required the suit property for setting up a law chamber for his son - an advocate practicing since 2004 - to practice from. It was admitted by the landlord that he had one other shop apart from the suit property, being the adjoining shop no. 2. He submitted that however, the said shop is only 6' x 10' and would not be suitable for setting up a chamber. The landlord had proposed to take the wall between the suit property and the said shop no. 2 and use the larger space of 12' x 10.3' as the chamber for his son. It was stated, on affidavit before the learned ARC, that the son does not possess any other chamber.

(2.) THE tenant filed an application seeking leave to defend the petition on various grounds, which this court need not go into in the present matter; the challenge in the revision is not qua those findings. Germane to the present lis, it was contended before the learned ARC that the landlord's requirement was not bona fide and that the landlord has indulged in suppressio veri and suggestio falsi as it is inconceivable that the landlord's son could have operated without a chamber. It was also contended that the landlord was already in possession of a property out of which his son could have operated his chamber and hence the claim that the suit property was required for that purpose is not bona fide. Lastly, it was contended that since the petitioner - having himself operated without a chamber - has operated out of the Central Hall of the Tis Hazari Courts Complex, it would be possible for his son to so do as well. Thus, it was argued that there was no bona fide requirement on the part of the landlord. It is clarified that although other contentions were raised before the learned ARC, they are not being recounted herein as (a) the findings qua those contentions have not been specifically challenged by the tenant before this court in this petition, and (b) the findings are, in the opinion of this court, in accordance with law.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY , the leave to defend was rejected which has been impugned in this petition.