RAJAN VARMANI Vs. KAMAL CHAND JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, brought under proviso to Sec. 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the petitioner/tenant has assailed order passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, Central District, Delhi whereby application of the petitioner/tenant for leave to contest the eviction proceedings under Sec. 14(1)(e) of the Act was dismissed. On service of notice, respondent/landlord entered appearance through counsel. I heard learned counsel for both sides.

(2.) Briefly stated, circumstances leading to the present petition are as follows.

(3.) During final arguments, learned counsel for petitioner took me through the above material and contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It was argued on behalf of petitioner that the present respondent had concealed in the eviction petition that the subject premises, bearing shop No. 6034 consists of two shops and not one shop. It was also argued that there is no financial need of the present respondent to seek eviction of the petitioner for the purposes of using the subject premises for business of his wife and daughter. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that even if requirement of the present respondent is considered bona fide, he can utilize rest of the portions of the said larger premises for business purposes of his wife and daughter.