PURAN CHAND AGGARWAL Vs. LEKH RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by way of the present petition under Section 25B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") has assailed the eviction order dated 23rd January, 2012, passed by Additional Rent Controller-01, East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed an eviction petition against the petitioner in respect of two shops situated in the suit property bearing Khasra No. 186/22, Municipal No. 780A, Banke Bihari Mandir Road, Scooter Market, Jheel Khurenja, Delhi-110051 (hereinafter referred to as "the tenanted shops"). The tenanted shops were let out to the petitioner for last many years on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,500/- exclusive of other charges. The tenanted shops came to the share of the respondent out of a notional partition amongst the legal heirs of the demised father of the respondent, who was the original owner of a part of the entire suit property. The respondent and his son were stated to be doing private jobs of selling medicines. Since the respondent and his son wanted to start their own business and their residential accommodation was not sufficient for the same, the respondent required the tenanted shops for himself and his son to start their own business and earn a decent livelihood.

(3.) The petitioner in the leave to defend application contended that one tenanted shop in the suit property was let out to the petitioner on 4th November, 1962 at the rent of Rs. 30/- per month, similarly second shop was let out to the petitioner in the year 1965 at the rent of Rs. 26/- per month and the third shop was let out to the petitioner in the year 1990 at the rent of Rs. 600/-. The rent was later increased to Rs. 1,000/- in the year 2001 and Rs. 1,500/- in 2010. Further, the petitioner objected that the respondent had not disclosed the particulars of the immovable properties which were in his possession and also did not disclose the shop from where the nephew of the respondent was carrying on commercial activities, that is one shop in the suit property. It was averred that the respondent and his family members had sufficient accommodation which had been concealed in the eviction petition and the respondent alongwith his family members was running commercial activities from other portion of the suit property. The bonafide requirement of the respondent was denied. It was contended that the petitioner had spent about Rs. 2,50,000/- in construction of the tenanted shops and further paid Rs. 50,000/- in cash to the respondent's brother in the year 1994. The fact of partition having taken place was denied and the suit property was contended to be a joint family property.