RISHAL SINGH Vs. BOHAT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition impugns an eviction order dated 31.3.2012, which rejected the petitioner/tenant's application seeking leave to defend the respondents/landlords' eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short "the Act").

(2.) The eviction order has been passed against the petitioner apropos the tenanted premises WZ-1/A/19, Ground Floor, Village Tatarpur, New Delhi- 110027, admeasuring 11ft X 9ft. The admitted rent was Rs.1,200/- per month. The landlord sought the eviction on the ground that his grandson required the property to start his own business and that the landlord had no property, other than the suit property from where he could run his business. The tenant, however, contended that there was no need, much less, a bona fide need since the landlord had other shops lying vacant and could put them to use. He further submits that the petition has been filed only to harass the tenant to pay a higher monthly rent. The learned counsel for the tenant states that the landlord was in possession of two other shops but had concealed these facts in the eviction petition. It is also argued that the site plan was not a correct reflection of the tenanted premises nor had the two vacant shops been indicated in it; that the landlord's grandson was not dependent upon him for the tenanted premises since the latter was gainfully occupied and earning his livelihood elsewhere and in any case the said grandson was no longer a part of the family of the landlord; that some time earlier the landlord had chosen to sell a room which was available to him, therefore, it is evident that if the landlord actually required additional space he would not have sold out the room.

(3.) The learned counsel for the landlord, on the other hand, has refuted these arguments by stating that the grandson was very much a part of his family and was dependent upon him.