NAND KISHORE SAINI Vs. GAJ RAJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 16th July, 2013 whereby his leave to defend application in an eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 by the respondent was dismissed and eviction order was passed.

(2.) IN the eviction petition, the respondent stated that he was residing with his family comprising of his two sons aged 21 years and 15 years respectively, two daughters and wife, the eldest daughter being married and the second daughter and son being of marriageable age, at 1883, Ram Mandir Marg, Kotla Mubarakpur. The respondent is the owner and landlord of the shop No.1407 Gurdwara Road, Kotla Mubarakpur which was let out to the petitioner as tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 150/ -which rent is being paid regularly. The respondent pleaded that tenanted shop was required bonafidely for the use and occupation of his elder son who was jobless and for himself. Despite being owner and landlord of the shop, the respondent is in penury condition and has no outlet available to him that is why the respondent's son has to sit in front of the tenanted shop on the pavement on the road on a small table of 3 feet x 2 feet to sell the shoes which do not attract enough buyers and simultaneously face the ordeal of Police and the MCD. Besides the tenanted shop, the respondent does not own or possess any other commercial premises. He filed the site plan of the shop.

(3.) IN the leave to defend application the petitioner pleaded that the respondent was neither the landlord nor owner of the tenanted premises. The petitioner came in occupation of the premises in the year 1963 which was a vacant land and subsequently structure was converted into semi -pucca and finally into a pucca structure which cost of construction was borne by the petitioner. As per the MCD record the property tax bill is raised in the name of M/s. Saini Electronics and is paid by the petitioner. Thus over a period of time the petitioner has perfected his title. In the leave to defend application, the petitioner further admits that in the year 2002 since sealing drive was being carried out by the MCD on the advice of the respondent certain receipts were executed to show that the property was tenanted and thus to escape the sealing drive of the MCD the petitioner got prepared the rent receipts which are being misused by the respondents. The tenanted shop is the only source of livelihood of the petitioner and his family members, and thus the eviction petition be dismissed.