RAJ KUMAR VERMA Vs. LATE NANAK CHAND

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 the eviction order passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller after full dress trial under Sec. 14(1)(e) of the Act. On notice of these proceedings, the respondents/landlords 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 above records and contended that the impugned eviction order is not sustainable in law. Learned counsel for petitioners/tenants contended that there is no material on record to show that the Badarpur shop of sons of Shri Nanak Chand got demolished. It was also argued on behalf of petitioners/ tenants that there is no explanation as to why the respondents/landlords cannot use four rooms available on first floor of the premises. Learned counsel for petitioners/tenants submitted that according to the pleadings, the respondents/landlords need only four rooms but subsequently, without amending the eviction petition, they increased the need to atleast six rooms.