SUMIT KHURANA Vs. MOHD IBRAHIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, brought under proviso to Sec. 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the petitioners/tenants have assailed order dtd. 24/12/2018 of the learned Additional Rent Controller whereby application of the petitioners/tenants for leave to contest the proceedings under Sec. 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act was dismissed and consequently, eviction order was passed against the present petitioners/tenants in respect of one shop (hereinafter referred to as "the subject premises") on ground floor of the larger premises bearing no. 3104/XI, Kucha Tara Chand, Sir Syed Ahmed Road, Darya Ganj, Delhi. On service of notice, the respondent/landlord entered appearance through counsel. I heard learned counsel for both sides.

(2.) Briefly stated, circumstances relevant for present purposes are as follows.

(3.) During arguments, learned counsel for petitioners/tenants took me through the aforesaid and contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law insofar as the petitioners/tenants deserved to be granted leave to contest. It was argued by learned counsel for petitioners/tenants that the requirement projected by the respondent/landlord is self created paucity of accommodation and not a bona fide necessity as the respondent/landlord habitually gets the shops vacated and sells away the same, so even the subject premises after being vacated would be sold away; that the site plan at pdf page 56 depicts four shops, out of which the orange shaded shop is the subject premises while the shops shaded red and green were sold by the respondent/landlord in June 2013 while the shop shaded black was sold during pendency of the eviction proceedings. Since the learned Additional Rent Controller failed to notice these sales, the impugned order is liable to be set aside according to petitioners/tenants.