(1.) The present Revision Petition is filed under Sec. 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as DRC Act) seeking to impugn the order dated 16.2.2016 passed by the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dismissing the application of the petitioner seeking leave to defend and passing an eviction order against the petitioner in respect of premises being portion of ground floor of property No.435, Chitla Gate, Chawri Bazar, Delhi-110006.
(2.) The respondents as landlords filed an Eviction Petition against the petitioner under section 14(1)(e) read with section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act on the grounds of bona fide requirements. It was stated that the tenanted premises comprising of a hall and a small room with common courtyard etc. were let out to Mohd.Saghir. The said tenant Mohd.Saghir expired on 15.11.2011 leaving behind a number of legal heirs including the petitioner who is a joint-tenant in succession and in occupation of the premises. The property is said to have been originally owned by one Smt.Kapoori Devi and her two sons Jagdish Prasad and Jagan Nath. Mohd.Saghir was inducted as a tenant by Smt.Kapoori Devi. The property was sold by the legal heirs of Shri Jagan Nath and Smt.Kapoori Devi and Shri Jagdish Prasad to the respondents vide registered sale deed dated 11.10.1996.
(3.) It is the case of the respondents/landlord that they require the premises for the bona fide personal use and that all the members of their family are dependent upon them financially and for business of manufacturing, renovating and sale of industrial tools including cutting tools from his shop 228, Meena Bazar, Delhi. It was further stated that he has no workshop of his own which is necessary for his business. Hence, the work of manufacturing and renovating of industrial tools has to be outsourced on the basis of job work and given to outside workshops which is not economically viable. It was further stated that the son of the respondent Mohd.Aseem, who is 19 years old is jobless and without any work. The respondent was duty bound to settle his son in business and he would like that his son should not only control the workshop meant for the stock in trade of respondent No.1 but also to start manufacturing of other industrial tool, for which workshop space is required which would be possible in case the legal heirs of the original tenant vacate the tenanted premises.