RAJAN PAL Vs. MANMOHAN SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition assails the order dated 23.5.2015 passed by the learned Rent Controller (Central) rejecting the leave to defend application of the petitioner and passing an order of eviction in respect of a shop bearing No. 2932, Ground Floor, Hamilton Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi -110006, more particularly, shown in red in the site plan in annexure C -1.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents. Mr. Malhotra, the learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order rejecting the leave to defend application only on two grounds. The first ground on which the leave to defend application has been rejected is pertaining to the fact that the respondent/landlord has an alternative accommodation available to him in the form of a space on the first floor as well as second floor of the same property wherefrom the requirement of the respondent/landlord can be met. It has been contended that the eviction of the petitioner from the shop in question is sought by the respondent/landlord in order to accommodate his two sons in starting a shop of a spare motor parts on the ground floor. The shop which is already under the possession of the respondent is being used as an office of spare parts, for the purpose of export, which office can be shifted on to the first floor and the second floor and consequently, the shop so vacated on the ground floor can be used for the business of selling spare parts in retail by the other two sons of the respondent/landlord.

(3.) The second submission which has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is challenging the bona fide of the respondent/landlord in seeking his eviction. In this regard, it has been stated that the respondent/landlord has six shops - three shops on the ground floor, one is in his possession while as the two other shops have been let out to two private parties, namely, Mahindra Auto Electricals and Mahindra Tractors on a huge premium and a very low rentals only 3 -4 years prior to the date of filing of the leave to defend. It has been contended that in case the requirement of the respondent/landlord would have been genuine, then they would not have let out the premises to these two private parties.