RAIS MIAN Vs. ABDUL SAMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition is filed under section 25 B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ("the Act") assailing the order of the SCJcum- RC whereby the eviction order was passed apropos the tenanted premises and the tenant's application seeking leave to defend was rejected.

(2.) Before discussing the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court, appraisal of a few facts would be necessary. The suit property is a tenanted shop identified as No. 446, Chitla Gate, Chawri Bazar, Delhi admeasuring 8 x 18'-3'', on the ground floor let out at a monthly rent of Rs, 323.50/- used for commercial purposes. The respondents (the "landlord") sought the tenanted premises under section 14(1)(e) of the Act for his and his sons' own commercial use. The family of the landlord consists of the landlord's wife, his divorced daughter, his two sons alongwith their wives, minor grandson, widowed daughter-in-law along with her two children who are also minors. It was stated that children of the deceased son continue to be in the care and shelter of the landlord who is providing all basic necessities for them which also includes paying for their educational expenses. The eviction petition enumerated the family members to show that it was a large family which the landlord had to take care of when the income earned by the landlord was insufficient to make ends meet.

(3.) Before the leaned ARC, the tenant contended that the case of the landlord is a mere desire for additional commercial accommodation and not a case of bonafide requirement for commercial accommodation hence the principle laid down in Satyawati Sharma & Anr. v. Union of India, 2008 148 DLT 705 will not apply. It was argued that landlord didn't have an actual necessity for the property as his sons were already occupied in work elsewhere and had sufficient accommodation for their business and were thereby contributing income which was sufficient to meet the expenditure of the family; that the landlord being 75 years old, did not require the premises to start any business at this stage in his life. It was further argued that in one of the shops, operated by the son of landlord, he was assisted by the landlord himself and that the said shop was spacious enough and the earnings therefrom were sufficient.