RAMESHWAR DAYAL Vs. SAROJ BALA RATHORE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/tenant against the eviction order dated 29.06.2015 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller (ARC), East District, North -West, Rohini, Delhi by virtue of which the Ld. ARC dismissed the petitioner's application for leave to defend and passed the order of eviction.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the respondent is the landlady of the shop on the ground floor forming part of the property bearing No. 1089/71, Deva Ram Park, Tri Nagar, Delhi -110035 and the same was let out to the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 500/ - (hereinafter referred to as the tenanted premise). The respondent on 13.09.2013 filed an eviction petition u/s. 14(1)(e) read with S. 25 -B of the Delhi Rent Control Act against the petitioner/revisionist herein on the grounds that the tenanted premises are required for the settlement of his son Rahul Rathore who has taken admission in a post graduate diploma in finance and on completion thereof intends to run his business from the aforesaid tenanted premises, there being no other suitable accommodation.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner/revisionist has argued that the word 'bonafide requirement" of the landlord cannot by any stretch of imagination include a mere design or desire to a start business. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgments of the Honorable Apex Court in cases titled Inderjeet Kaur v. Nirpal Singh : (2001)1 SCC 706 and Deena Nath v. Pooran Lal : (2001) 5 SCC 705.