SUBE SINGH @ SUBHASH Vs. OM PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Caveat No.459/2015

(2.) The case of Om Prakash in the eviction petition is that Sube Singh was a tenant in one shop No.3 in property No.46/8, Gali No.13, Gadodia Road, Nai Basti, Anand Parbat, New Delhi measuring 8 X 8 sq.ft. It was stated that the tenanted premises was owned by Om Prakash and let out by the father of Om Prakash to the father of Sube Singh in the year 1978 @Rs.140 excluding water and electricity charges. It was stated that premises was required bonafidely by Om Prakash for the purpose of settling his sons namely Surender Kumar aged 29 years and Vijay Kumar aged 20 years. Om Prakash had three sons and one daughter of whom two sons were of marriageable age but as they were not settled in life, therefore they could not be married. It was further stated that two sons Surender Kumar and Vijay Kumar wanted to start computer shop. Om Prakash further disclosed that the adjoining shop No.2, 4 and 5 were sold by Om Prakash in 2004 due to financial crises and in October, 2012 he obtained the possession of Shop No.1 after evicting the tenant from said shop. Shop No.1 was being used by Om Prakash and his wife for their business of photo framing.

(3.) In the leave to defend application, Sube Singh, inter alia, took the pleas that Om Prakash had earlier filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1) (e) DRC Act against other tenants Smt. Sunita, Sandeep, Manoj and Smt. Maina in respect of shop No.1 in the same suit premises on the ground floor and it was stated that "the demise premises that is shop No.1 was required bona fidely by the petitioner for his unemployed sons namely Roshan and Surender". After obtaining possession of the said shop, Om Prakash instead of settling his sons shifted his business from shop No.5 to shop No.1, thus the need of Om Prakash was not bona fide and he was using the name of his sons for getting the premises evicted from the tenants. It was stated that Om Prakash never sold shop No.5 and he continued to be owner of the said shop and that he did not sell shop Nos. 2 and 4. It was further stated that though in the earlier eviction petition, the requirement of Om Prakash was to settle his sons Roshan Lal and Surender Kumar, however Roshan Lal was employed in bank and Surender Kumar was Home Guard. His younger son Vijay Kumar was studying at that time was studying in Ramjas No.2 School at Anand Parbat, thus there was no bonafide requirement.