TILAK RAJ CHADHA Vs. VIJAY KUMAR ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks to impugn the order dated 22.4.2015 of the Additional Rent Controller by which an application filed by the respondent/tenant for granting leave to defend the Eviction Petition was allowed. The petitioner had filed the Eviction Petition under section 14(1)(e) read with section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act for a shop in premises No. 143, Desh Bandhu Gupta Market, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.

(2.) A perusal of the impugned order shows that the ARC while considering the application for leave to defend filed by the respondent/tenant has allowed the same particularly on two grounds (i) that the petitioner in the Eviction Petition has sought eviction of the respondent from the said shop for bona fide requirements for himself, for his son and also for his daughter-in-law. (ii)There is no specific averment or specific purpose for which tenanted premises is required. Hence, the ARC concluded that the plea raised is vague regarding bona fide requirements as the respondent cannot be accepted to fulfil all his bona fide requirements from a single shop. Hence, the ARC concluded that a triable issue is raised.

(3.) Secondly, the ARC held that the petitioner has sought eviction from the tenanted premises. In the application for leave to defend the respondent has mentioned that the property No. 143 is divided into two parts and one shop has been let out to Shri Manoj Sehgal. This has been denied by the petitioner stating that this is a subsequent event which took place on 27.3.2014. He submits that the Eviction Petition was filed in 2012 whereas Shri Manoj Sehgal handed over the half portion of the shop in question on 26.12.2013. Hence, he submits that the subsequent event could not be commented upon by the petitioner.