ABDUL HAFIZ Vs. MOHD ZAKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 31st January, 2015 whereby leave to defend application filed by the respondent in an eviction petition filed by the petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 in short the DRC Act was allowed, the petitioner prefers the present petition.

(2.) IN the eviction petition, the petitioner stated that property bearing No.113 -114, Masjid Tehwar Khan, Naya Bans, Delhi was purchased by one Shri Habib Ahmed, son of Shri Kallu from its previous owners by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 2nd December, 1981. The premises was being managed by the petitioner and two sons of Shri Habib Ahmed in his life time on the authority of Shri Habib Ahmed. The tenanted shop in the said property was let out by the petitioner to respondent in the year 1986 for commercial use and the rent was collected by the petitioner and his uncles against the rent receipts. After the death of Shri Habib Ahmed, the property devolved on his wife, three sons, and the daughters, however one son of Shri Habib Ahmed died on 6th March, 2003 and the petitioner being the son of the said deceased son became the co -owner of the said property. The petitioner is running the business of manufacturing of lady purses from property bearing No. 1607, Gali Veer, Sadar Nala Road, Sadar Bazar, Delhi -06 which is under the tenancy of brother of the petitioner Abdul Rehman. The landlord of the said premises has expired and the legal heirs are putting pressure on the petitioner to vacate the said premises. The elder three sons of the petitioner are married and settled, however the fourth son is a student of 12th standard and wants to settle in his own business. The petitioner also wants to shift his business to his own property which is situated in a commercial market. The suit property consists of ground floor, first floor and second floor. The first and second floor are used for residential purposes by the various tenants and have been sold by the petitioner and the other coowners. The respondent is a tenant is in occupation of the shop bearing Private No.14 of the property from where he is running the business under the name and style of M/s. Sangam Plastics and using the tenanted shop bearing Private No.8 for go -down purposes. Since the petitioner requires the tenanted premises bonafidely the same be got evicted.

(3.) IN the leave to defend application the respondent pointed out the availability of additional vacant shops with the petitioner which could be used to start the business of his son. It was stated that one son of the petitioner was doing the business of sale and purchase of luxury vehicles at Ashok Vihar. On the pleas of availability of additional vacant shops and the disputed site plans, the learned Trial Court granted leave to defend to the petitioner.