DIGAMBAR SINGH RANA Vs. JANAM SINGH DHARIWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) No one appears for the respondents. No one appeared for the respondents even on 8.7.2014 and therefore they were proceeded exparte on that date.

(2.) The present petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') impugns the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 15.5.2013 by which the respondents/tenants have been granted leave to defend. Leave to defend has been granted by making the following observations in para 4 of the impugned order and in which it is stated that two shops on the main road in property bearing No.H-193-B, Dilshad Garden, Delhi would be an alternative suitable accommodation as also one shop in property bearing No.194A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi:-

(3.) In my opinion, the Additional Rent Controller has committed a clear cut illegality and perversity in passing the impugned order inasmuch as the respondent/tenant only made a self-serving statement in the affidavit supporting the leave to defend application that there were two shops of the petitioner/landlord in property bearing no.H-193B, Dilshad Garden, Delhi and which cannot be believed, because in the reply to leave to defend application with the supporting affidavit thereof it is specifically denied by the petitioner/landlord that there do not exist the alleged two shops which are stated to exist in property bearing No.H-193B, Dilshad Garden, Delhi. Therefore, a mere self-serving averment of the respondents/tenants cannot create existence of two shops belonging to the petitioner/landlord when really those shops do not exist or stand in the name of the petitioner/landlord. Such a defence of a tenant thus does not create a triable issue.