GULAB SINGH Vs. SHER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 10th April, 2012, rejecting the leave to defend application of the Petitioner in an eviction petition filed by the Respondent under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short "the DRC Act") the Petitioner prefers the present petition.

(2.) An eviction petition being E-201/2011 was filed by Sher Singh seeking eviction of the tenanted premises, that is, a shop admeasuring 8 ft. x 9 ft. on the ground floor forming part of the suit property No.1/46, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092 which was let out to Gulab Singh, the Petitioner herein. The tenanted shop was let out in the year 1987 at a monthly rent of Rs.800/- per month excluding electricity charges which were increased to Rs.880/- per month. The tenanted shop was required bona fidely by Sher Singh for the purpose of opening a physiotherapy clinic for his daughter who was dependent on him. It was stated that in the suit property one middle shop was with Sher Singh, the other shop was with Petitioner and the third shop was with the other tenant M.K. Gupta who was running a coaching centre which tenancy was renewed from time to time.

(3.) In the leave to defend application Gulab Singh took the plea that Sher Singh was not the absolute owner of the tenanted shop. Gulab Singh had not accepted him as the landlord. Sher Singh concealed the fact that he owns one more property bearing No. 1/30, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi admeasuring 65 sq. yards which was built upto five storey and each floor comprised of various large cabins/spaces which were lying vacant. Even in the suit property, that is, 1/46, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar there was enough accommodation to satisfy the requirements of Sher Singh. Further no shop was in possession of Sher Singh and in fact the other two shops were in possession of M.K. Gupta and in one shop he was running a coaching institute and in the other he had opened the office. The projected need of Sher Singh was not bona fide.