PREM SINGH Vs. DHARM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition impugns the order dated 7.12.2013 whereby the petitioner (tenant) has been directed to vacate a shop admeasuring 9ft. X 18ft. on the ground floor of premises bearing No.1958, Pillanji, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi. In terms of the said order the respondentlandlord's eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'DRC Act') was allowed and the tenant's application for leave to defend was rejected.

(2.) The case of the tenant was that there was no bona fide need; the landlord was not the actual owner of the premises; the property was given to one Shri Hem Singh, the elder brother of the tenant, at a license fee of Rs.4,000/- per month by the eviction petitioner, therefore, the provisions of the DRC Act would not apply; that the eviction petitioner owned other properties where he had sufficient alternate accommodation these properties were 1915 & 1958, Pillanji, Kotla Mubarakpur, each of which had shops located on the ground floor and elsewhere too; that another property, viz. P-137, Old Pillanji, Sarojini Nagar a three storeyed building comprising of eight (8) shops on the ground floor was another suitable alternate accommodation available to the eviction petitioner; that property No.151, Pilanji, Kotla Mubarakpur was the wrong address since the petitioner (landlord) was residing at Old Pilanji, Sarojini Nagar and not at Kotla Mubarakpur.

(3.) Besides, the tenant further contended, in the latter property there were shops on the ground floor and residential accommodation on its upper floors, i.e. that the petitioner had four shops in his possession where he and his sons were carrying on their business. Therefore, they had sufficient commercial accommodation. However, the facts regarding these properties were not disclosed in the eviction petition. Therefore, it was argued that the petition lacked bona fides, was defective and should have been dismissed. In reply to the application for leave to defend, the respondent-landlord submitted that he neither owned nor had any property bearing No.1915, Pillanji, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi; that property P-137, Old Pillanji was being used by the landlord's son for residential purpose. That although there were shops on the ground floor of the said property, it was unsuitable for running a commercial shop since the property was located in a narrow lane. The landlord submitted that the rental collected from other shops was distributed between his married sons Rambir, Ranbir, Rajbir & Raghubir Singh. He submitted that inadvertently his residential address has been shown as 151, Pillanji, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi instead of 151, Old Pillanji, Sarojini Nagar, Delhi. He submitted that the property bearing No.P- 137 and P-151, Old Pillanji, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi are the one and the same property and it is referred by both the numbers because from the front side it is known as P-137, Old Pillanji, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi and from the rear side it is known as P-151, Old Pillanji, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi.