MALLO MAL MALHOTRA Vs. SURESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE the impugned order dated 23rd September, 2014, the learned ARC in an eviction petition filed by the petitioner, Mallo Mal Malhotra against Suresh Kumar, the tenant under Section 14(1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (in short 'DRC Act') granted leave to defend. Learned ARC vide the impugned order agreed with the contention of Suresh Kumar that when the projected need of the eviction petitioner is for securing the financial future of his widowed daughter then the eviction petitioner has to at least prima facie place on record the substantive documents to prove that indeed his widowed daughter is not left with any financial support either by her deceased husband or her in -laws and since no such supportive documents were placed, leave to defend was granted. Learned ARC also noted that the plea of Suresh Kumar has not been countered by Mallo Mal. In light of these findings of the learned ARC it would be necessary to note the averments in the eviction petition, leave to defend application and the reply thereto.

(2.) IN the eviction petition, Mallo Mal stated that he was owner/landlord of the tenanted premises which was a shop measuring 130 sq.ft. on the ground floor of property bearing No. 22 -F, Kolhapur Road, Kamla Nagar, Delhi which was let out jointly to Krishan Lal and his son Suresh Kumar. Krishan Lal has since passed away and thus there was single tenancy with Suresh Kumar at a monthly rent of Rs.150/ - including all other charges. To put the facts straight, the following paragraphs of the eviction petition would be relevant -

(3.) IN the leave to defend application, Suresh Kumar stated that the eviction petitioner concealed and manipulated material facts with the sole intention to mislead the Court and to show the paucity of accommodation. Mallo Mal wants to get the premises vacated to re -let the same at a higher rent. Mallo Mal has admitted that he does not need the premises for his accommodation but requires the same for his widow daughter who herself inherited the property of her deceased husband. The other portion of property bearing No. 22F, Kohlapur Road, Delhi has not been disclosed. Para 10 of the affidavit with leave to defend application which was considered by the learned Trial Court is noted as under: -