NARESH GUPTA Vs. RAJINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 impugns the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller dated 28.2.2014 by which judgment the Additional Rent Controller has dismissed the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner/tenant and has decreed the eviction petition with respect to the tenanted premises being Shop No. 129, Plot No.1, Block No. 88, Baird Road (now known as Bangla Sahib Road), admeasuring about 588.7 sq. ft. The bonafide necessity petition was filed by the respondent/landlord on the ground that he needs the premises for opening of a business of restaurant/eatery shop by his son Deepanshu Aggarwal who has got a graduation degree in Hotel Management. It is said that the tenanted premises are situated in a very valuable area and the same are ideally suited for opening of the business of a restaurant/eatery shop by his son Deepanshu Aggarwal. It was pleaded that except the premises in question, there is no other commercial premises which is available/vacant and which can be used for opening of a restaurant/eatery shop by the son Deepanshu Aggarwal and hence the bonafide necessity petition.

(2.) Petitioner filed leave to defend application and contested the eviction petition on various grounds, including the grounds which are stated below, and only which grounds have been argued before this Court:-

(3.) So far as the aspect that the respondent is not the owner of the suit premises is concerned, this argument urged on behalf of the petitioner has no substance because the respondent/landlord has filed on record the registered sale deed dated 20.8.1993 by which the suit premises was purchased by the respondent from one Sh. Ramesh Chander. Sh. Ramesh Chander had inducted the father of the petitioner/tenant namely Sh. Mitthan Lal in the suit/tenanted premises. It is settled law that negative defences cannot create a triable issue and mere self-serving denial of ownership of the respondent/landlord cannot create a triable issue once the respondent/landlord has filed the sale deed by which the property was purchased and there is nothing on record that the original owner has in any manner disputed the sale deed or is disputing the ownership of the respondent/landlord. The Additional Rent Controller has exhaustively dealt with this aspect from paras 13 to 21 of the impugned judgment in which the Additional Rent Controller besides referring to the sale deed has also referred to the fact that it is not the case of the petitioner/tenant that there is any fraud in execution of the sale deed. Therefore, I reject the argument that the respondent is not the owner of the suit premises and that this aspect creates a triable issue.