VINOD KUMAR & ANR Vs. AJAY KUMAR SINGHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated 27.05.2015 wherein in the eviction petition filed by the landlord (Ajay Kumar Singhal) seeking a decree of eviction (qua the suit property i.e. a shop on the ground floor forming part of property bearing No. P 4756/4758, Ward No. 3, Laxmi Bazar, Cloth Market, Delhi) (hereinafter referred to as the ,,said shop) was decreed in favour of the landlord. The petitioner before this Court is the tenant. It was after a trial that the learned Additional Rent Controller (ARC) returned a finding that the landlord is entitled to a decree.

(2.) Record shows that the aforenoted eviction petition had been filed by the landlord qua the aforenoted shop under Section 14 (1)(e) read with Section 25 -B of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the ,,said Act). The said shop had been tenanted as a single tenancy; rate of rent was Rs.99/ - per month. The landlord claimed himself to be the owner of the suit property. Further contention being that initially the said shop had been tenanted out to the sole proprietorship firm of M/s Sain Dass Dev Raj. Sain Dass had expired on 13.12.1990 and after his death, his two sons Vinod Kumar and Dev Raj had inherited the tenancy rights from their father and accordingly, they have been impleaded in the said petition. The landlords contention was that this property is required bonafide by him for running a business by his wife (Vandana Singhal). He has no other reasonably suitable accommodation for the said purpose. It was further stated that w.e.f. 01.08.2010, his wife was carrying on business under the name and style of M/s Sidhant Textiles (as a sole proprietor) from a tenanted shop at 650, Gali Ghanteshwar, Katra Neel, Chandni Chowk, Delhi which she had taken at a monthly rent of Rs.6,000/ - per month. The landlord of the said shop was Radha Textiles.

(3.) Leave to defend had been granted in favour of the tenant. Written statement was filed. The plea raised in the written statement was that the landlord is in fact neither the owner and nor the landlord of the said premises; there is a mis -joinder of parties as Vinod Kumar and Dev Raj are not the tenants of the said shop; the tenancy was under the name of M/s Sain Dass Dev Raj which is the partnership firm distinct and separate in entity from Vinod Kumar and Dev Raj. Another objection which was taken in the written statement was that the documents on record qua the tenancy of Sidhant Textiles from Radha Testiles were all sham and created documents; this was only to build up a bonafide need which was actually not bonafide. Additional submission was that there is alternate accommodation with the landlord in the form of the first floor of the suit property which is lying vacant. In the written statement, it was also pleaded that an earlier eviction petition E -300/2008 titled Ajay Kumar Singhal Vs. Dev Raj had been filed by the landlord under Section 14 (1)(e) of the said Act which was subsequently withdrawn on 22.03.2011 which was after the date of the filing of the present eviction petition which was on 18.03.2011. The present petition has tried to overcome the lacuna in the first petition and at the cost of repetition, the bonafide need sought to be set up by the landlord has been created by fabricating documents to show that the wife of the landlord was carrying on the textile business from a tenanted shop. She was in fact not carrying on any business.