SUNIL ABROL Vs. USHA SETHI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 23.12.2014 passed by the learned Rent Controller (South), Saket Court, New Delhi, by virtue of which the leave to defend has been granted to the respondent to contest the eviction petition filed by the petitioner under Sec. 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the present petitioner is claiming himself to be the owner of property No.M -27, Greater Kailash, Part -1 which consists of ground floor, first floor and second floor. It has been stated that the petitioner has two sisters, namely, Pamela Kapoor and Meenakshi Nijhawan, who had relinquished their share on 29.5.2008 in the aforesaid property belonging to their mother, Swarn Lata Abrol, on the basis of which he had become the absolute owner. He has stated that the premises are required bona fide by the present petitioner for his own use for running a consultancy business as he has done two Ph. D, one in High Technology Equipment Services Export Opportunities and second in Behavioral Science granted by Indian Institute of Foreign Trade and University of Delhi respectively. At the time when the petition was filed, the petitioner was holding the post of Director General, Consultancy Development Centre, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India and he was to superannuate on 30.4.2011 on attaining the age of superannuation whereupon, he wanted to setup his Management Consultancy business in multidisciplinary management consultancy services to provide his expert services to corporate clients. The petitioner also required the premises for the business purpose of his two sons, namely, Siddharth and Satyen, who were pursuing Post Doctoral Studies in Chemical Engineering and M.S. Computer Science in USA respectively. It was stated that their studies were to come to an end in the year 2010 where after they propose to come back to India and join the present petitioner in his multidisciplinary consultancy services. It was stated that both the sons of the petitioner are highly qualified and that the petitioner has no other alternative suitable accommodation available to him.

(3.) On notice being issued to the respondent/tenant, they filed the leave to defend application raising the challenge to the bona fides of the present petitioner for using the premises as well as the fact that he is already in possession of sufficient accommodation. It was also stated by them that so far as the sons of the present petitioner are concerned, they are settled in USA and they do not intend to come back to India. It was also stated that the petitioner's requirement of the suit premises was not bona fide and in any case, he was able to retrieve the possession of nearly 500 square feet of area on the ground floor from another tenant and therefore, if at all the petitioner wanted accommodation for the purpose of setting up of his consultancy business then it would become case of an additional accommodation for which the leave to defend had to be necessarily granted to the present petitioner. It may be pertinent here to mention that the petitioner had setup a requirement of nearly 900 square feet of an area out of which he had claimed that he is in possession of only 500 square feet of area, portion of the premises, were vacated by the other tenant in pursuance to the court orders.