SURESH KUMAR KAUSHIK Vs. RAJ BALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 11th February, 2010 dismissing the leave to defend application of the Petitioner and the order dated 7th December, 2010 whereby the review application of the Petitioner was dismissed, the Petitioner prefers the present petition.

(2.) IN the eviction petition filed by the Respondents under Section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short 'the DRC Act') the Respondents who are the wife and son of late Chaudhary Diwan Singh sought eviction of the Petitioner from the property Shop No.3, House No.105, Gali No.5, Krishna Nagar, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as 'tenanted premises'). The Respondents sought eviction of the tenanted shop for the bona fide requirement for starting the business of Respondent No.2, Vikram Singh as the Respondents had no other reasonably suitable accommodation for starting the business. The Respondents further stated that the Respondent No.2 and 3 were at that time working with their uncle Shri Preetam Singh in his shop and wanted to start their own business.

(3.) IN the leave to defend application filed by the Petitioner, the Petitioner took pleas that the Respondents were not owner of the premises. The site plan filed was not correct. The Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had not disclosed their present occupation and the nature of business which they wanted to start from the tenanted shop, the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were gainfully employed as they were working in sweet shop namely Anupam Sweet House, Krishna Nagar as partners with their uncle and no document has been placed to show that the property belongs to Balbir Singh, father of late Chaudhary Diwan Singh.