RAKESH GUPTA Vs. NIRMAL NANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 01.04.2015 passed by Shri Shailender Malik, the learned Rent Controller, Rohini Courts, Delhi in case No. ENo.4/15, titled Nirmal Nanda v. Rakesh Gupta by virtue of which the leave to defend of the present petitioner was dismissed and an order of eviction was passed.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised before this Court only one point on the basis of which he has contended that the bonafide requirement of the respondent -landlord is suspected in the instant case which ought to have been treated as giving rise to a triable issue. It was contended that the petitioner -tenant is in occupation of a shop on the ground floor of property No.B -1/21, Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi and the respondent -landlord has sought his eviction on the ground that he and his wife are senior citizens and therefore, unable to climb to the second floor of the suit property where they are living along with their married son. It has been stated that because of the old age problems it is becoming very difficult for them to climb the stairs and to reach the second floor and therefore, would like to shift to the ground floor. However, on the ground floor there is only one room, kitchen and a washroom which is under the occupation of younger son of the respondent -landlord. In case, the shop which is basically a room under the occupation of the present petitioner -tenant is vacated, they will convert this into a bedroom and use the same. It was contended by the learned counsel that the respondent -landlord has talked about the ground floor and the second floor but he had not purposely mentioned about the accommodation on the first floor where also respondent -landlord has two rooms available with him and therefore, that can be treated as an alternative suitable accommodation to the respondent - landlord. It has also been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner -tenant that the respondent -landlord could have shifted to the ground floor by relocating his own son to the first floor. But the learned Rent Controller has brushed aside this submission of the petitioner -tenant by observing that the tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondent -landlord contested the aforesaid and submitted that the first floor of the suit premises belongs to the elder brother of the respondent -landlord and is occupied by him and, therefore, the first floor could not be considered to be an alternative suitable accommodation available to the respondent -landlord. He has further contended that all other objections raised by the petitioner -tenant in his leave to defend have been rejected by the learned Rent Controller by a speaking and a reasoned order.