RAKESH KUMAR Vs. KAMLESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition brought under proviso to Sec. 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act assails order dtd. 19/8/2015 of the learned Rent Controller whereby application of the present petitioner for grant of leave to contest the eviction proceedings under Sec. 14(1)(e) of the Act was dismissed, holding that no triable issue was raised on behalf of the present petitioner. On service of notice of these proceedings, the present respondents entered appearance through counsel. I heard learned counsel for both sides.

(2.) Briefly stated, circumstances relevant for present purposes, as extracted from rival pleadings and records are as follows.

(3.) During final arguments, learned counsel for petitioner/tenant in all fairness did not challenge the ownership of the present respondents over the subject premises and relationship of tenancy between the parties. However, learned counsel for petitioner/tenant laid strong emphasis on his contention that the present respondents admittedly want to demolish the entire property and reconstruct the same, so they ought to have filed eviction petition under Sec. 14(1)(g) of the Act and the petition under Sec. 14(1)(e) of the Act is not even maintainable. It was also argued on behalf of petitioner/tenant that the subject premises are admittedly in dilapidated condition, but the present respondents have failed to explain as to how they would reside there. Learned counsel for petitioner/tenant also argued that the present respondents concealed availability of one room on the rooftop above the subject premises and the same can always be used by them. Learned counsel for petitioner/tenant also contended that the present respondents had constructed three shops and let out the same, which shows that their requirement of the subject premises is not bona fide.