GOBIND LAL Vs. AKSHAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner challenges the order dated 29th February, 2012 whereby the leave to defend application filed by the Petitioner in an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short 'the DRC Act') filed by the Respondent was disallowed and the eviction order was passed.

(2.) IN the eviction petition the Respondent stated that he was the owner of Property bearing No.4698 and 4700 having area of 17.5 sq.yards on the ground floor, 34 sq.yards on the first floor, second floor and third floor. The third floor of the property No.4698 was purchased from Ram Chander Bhawsar vide Sale Deed dated 19th September, 1994 when the Respondent was a minor. At the time of purchase of the property the Petitioner's father Kartar Mal was the tenant at the ground floor on a monthly rent of Rs.175/ - per month. After the death of his father, the Petitioner is in possession of the ground floor and is paying a rent of Rs.600/ - per month. The father of the Respondent was doing small business from second floor and the third floor since he is now ill and not in a position to climb the stairs and also because the Respondent has completed BBA and wants to establish his own business he requires the tenanted premises bearing No.4698, First Floor bona fidely as no other property is available.

(3.) IN the leave to defend application the Petitioner claimed that his firm M/s Radhey Shyam Ramesh Chander was inducted as a tenant in the suit property much before the birth of the Respondent by old landlord and given the entire first floor and terrace floor of the Property No.4698, Laxmi Nagar, Cloth Market, Delhi and as M/s Radhey Shyam Ramesh Chander has not been impleaded as Respondent no eviction can be carried out. It was stated that no valid cause of action arose in favour of the Respondent to seek eviction. Reference was made to the earlier eviction petition wherein nonpayment of rent was pleaded. It is further stated that the Respondent is not the owner of the suit property as he was a minor at the time of purchase of the suit property. The notice dated 29th April, 2010 was defective and no bona fide requirement was mentioned therein. Further the respondent was studying in Pune when the notice was issued. The tenancy being commercial, the same is not covered under Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act.