PRAN NATH KATYAL Vs. K.C.VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition is filed under section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, (hereinafter referred to as the DRC Act) seeking to impugn the order dated 14.10.2013 passed by the Additional Rent Controller (hereinafter referred to as the ARC) whereby the eviction petition filed by the petitioner/landlord under Section 14(1) (e) of the DRC Act was dismissed.

(2.) The petitioner/landlord filed the Eviction Petition seeking eviction of the respondent/tenant under section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act of property being 17/17, Ground Floor (back portion) Mall Road, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi. The entire property measures 61 sq.yards comprising of two and half floors. The respondent/tenant has in his possession one shop measuring 9"x 13". As per the eviction petition the case of the petitioner was that the premises are required by the petitioner for himself/other members of the family. The petitioner retired from the Central Government in May 2000. His family consists of his wife, one married son, Shri Surinder Katyal, daughter in law, two grandsons, namely, Utkarsh and Namit. He has two married daughters. It is stated that the eldest grandson Shri Utkarsh is the son of Shri Surinder Katyal from his first wife. His stepmother it is stated is not taking care of him because of which Shri Utkarsh is left far behind in his studies. Hence, the petitioner seeks to open a shop for him but is not having sufficient space. Further, his son Shri Surinder Katyal i.e. father of Shri Utkarsh has recently been served with a job termination notice from his private job and hence the entire family is dependent upon the petitioner. It was further stated that on the first floor the petitioner has one room, one drawing room, one kitchen, one bathroom and one toilet and on the second floor he has two rooms. Further, it is stated that the petitioner is also having a small space of 5"x 14" which is insufficient to carry on the desired business on the ground floor. The front of the said shop is further shortened by a 2" pillar. Another shop is said to be under the ownership and occupation of Ms.Ritu Kapoor.

(3.) The respondent filed his application for leave to defend. However, the said application was dismissed vide order dated 12.4.2012. The respondent had impugned the said order of the ARC dated 12.4.2012 before this court in RC Rev.438/2013. By consent order dated 23.5.2013 the order of the ARC dated 12.4.2012 was set aside and leave was granted to the respondents. The ARC was directed to dispose of the matter within one year.