MAHABIR PRASAD AGGARWAL Vs. GOPAL KRISHAN PURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 22nd April, 2013 whereby the leave to defend application filed by 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) was dismissed, the petitioner prefers the present petition.

(2.) IN the eviction petition, the respondent pleaded that the tenanted premises was a shop in property B -7, Ground Floor, Tagore Market which was let out to the petitioner by the late father of respondent on 1st April, 1992 at a rent of Rs. 500/ - per month besides electricity charges. The respondent stated that he inherited the suit property from his father who executed a Will in his favour and thus he became the absolute owner of the property. The respondent is residing in the first floor of the said premises along with his family members and his two sons. The respondent retired from NCERT on 30th March, 2010 and both his sons are working in private sector but due to recession both of them lost their respective jobs. Due to the uncertainty in the private sector jobs, both his sons want to start their business along with the respondent. The respondent plans to start a restaurant in the premises and as there is no other restaurant in the market thus there are chances of growth. The respondent has received money from the provident fund which can be utilized to start business with his sons.

(3.) IN the leave to defend application the petitioner challenged the validity of the Will dated 20th December, 1978 and that the alleged Will was never acted inter -se the legal heirs of the deceased landlord and that the petition was bad for non -joinder of other legal heirs. It was stated that the bonafide requirement was only self -created and sham. The tenanted premises was surrounded by number of shops of furniture and combustible material like paints, etc., and thus prone to fire. The sons of the respondent are lucratively employed, have been living separately and thus are not dependent on the respondent.