PAWAN KUMAR Vs. PARAMJIT SINGH GILL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 26th September, 2014 dismissing 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) the petitioner prefers the present petition.

(2.) In the eviction petition, the respondent stated that the tenanted premises was a shop on the ground floor in suit property bearing No. C-145, Hari Nagar, Clock Tower, Main Market. The suit property was purchased by the father of the respondent who executed a Will in favour of the respondent. Thus, he is the sole and absolute owner of the property after the father's demise. The tenanted shop has two shops merged together admeasuring 8 ft x 15 ft and the other 12 ft x 21 ft. Thus the total measurement of the shop is 372 sq. feets. The premises was let out on a rent of Rs. 2260/- per month. The respondent's family comprises of himself, his mother, his wife, two daughters, one son and one niece. Three of the children are studying in college. The respondent has a shop from where he does the business of property dealing but his earning is not much from the said shop. The only source of income for the respondent's family is the rent received from the tenants of the suit property. The respondent is living on the first floor of the suit property. The daughter of the respondent aged 24 years is a graduate and doing the Company Secretary course. The respondent wants his daughter to supplement the income of his family and thus she is interested in running a coaching centre, for which he has asked the petitioner to vacate the premises. He has no other suitable accommodation for running a coaching centre for the daughter other than the tenanted premises.

(3.) In the leave to defend application the petitioner stated that the respondent had filed a wrong site plan and besides the tenanted premises there are three other shops on the ground floor. The respondent has not mentioned how the tenanted premises was suitable. Further the respondent is in possession of the second, third and fourth floor of the suit property which fact has also been concealed. There is no explanation about the vacant second and third floor of the property. It is further stated that in the locality of Hari Nagar, Clock Tower there are number of coaching centers which are being run from upper floors for the last many years. Besides it is stated that the daughter of the respondent after doing the CS course would prefer doing job in a big company or multinational company rather than running a coaching centre. It is further stated that the respondent is living a luxurious life and has no paucity of money.