ARUN PURI Vs. RAJINDER KUMAR AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, brought under proviso to Sec. 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the petitioners/tenants have assailed the order passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, Central District, Delhi whereby application of the petitioners seeking leave to contest the proceedings under Sec. 14(1)(e) of the Act was dismissed. On service of notice of these proceedings, 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 final arguments, learned counsel for petitioners took me through the entire record and contended that the impugned eviction order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for petitioners strongly contended that the present respondent is already engaged in a business of luxury buses and does not require the subject premises, especially because he is residing in Chandigarh. Learned counsel for petitioners admitted that the subject premises are lying unused and locked for past few years, but blamed the present respondent for not having got the same repaired. Learned counsel for petitioners also submitted that since the earlier eviction petitions were dismissed in default, it shows that the present respondent does not seriously require the subject premises.