KAMLESH KUMAR JAIN Vs. CHANDRA KANTA AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed under section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'DRC Act') seeking to impugn the eviction order dated 5.5.2016 passed by the Additional Rent Controller (hereinafter referred to as 'the ARC'). Respondent/landlord had filed an eviction petition under section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act for property being part of First Floor, House No. 1872/P, Mahalaxmi Market, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. The tenancy is said to have been created vide Rent Agreement dated 11.2.1992. The present rate of rent is Rs. 584.62 per month. The respondent is the owner and landlady. The property was let out to the petitioners alongwith Shri Mahender Kumar Jain who expired on 7.9.2010.

(2.) It is the case of the respondent/landlord that the tenanted premises is required bonafide by the respondent for herself and for her son who is dependent upon her for accommodation. It is urged that the respondent is living in Kolkata at 1-A, Cornfield Road, Kolkata-700019 which is a joint tenanted accommodation with other family members of her in-laws. The family of the respondent comprises herself aged 77 years, her married son, daughter-in-law and two grand daughters aged 19 and 17 years. It is urged that the grand daughters are growing up and the respondent and the other family members want to shift to Delhi for higher education of the grand daughters as Delhi offers better higher professional education. The respondent has no commercial property in Kolkata and Delhi in her possession. Moreover, the respondent owns various commercial properties particularly in Chandni Chowk, Delhi which are under occupation of different tenants. The rent received from these properties in Delhi is the main source of income of the respondent and her son. The tenants are said to be taking undue advantage of the absence of the respondent and that the respondent and her son are finding it difficult to manage the properties. It is claimed that the tenants are inducting sub-tenants without permission of the respondent, are causing structural changes etc. Hence, the respondent and her son also want to shift to Delhi for better management and supervision of the properties of the respondent. The son of the respondent also wants to start his business of electrical items from the tenanted premises. The market where the tenanted shop is situated is famous for electrical business in Asia. Further, one married daughter of the respondent is also living in Delhi with her family. It is also averred that the adjacent property being Shop No.1869 situated at the ground floor is also under the tenancy of A.M.Electric through its partner Shri Kamlesh Kumar Jain (petitioner No.1 herein) and is also a suitable premises for the respondent and her family members,

(3.) The ARC by the impugned order noted that all the properties which are available with the respondent in Delhi are under occupation of different tenants. It also came to the conclusion that there was nothing on record to show that the application for eviction filed by the respondent is guided by mala fide and has not been made with bona fide intentions. The impugned order concludes that the petitioners have failed to disclose facts which would disentitle the landlord/respondent from obtaining recovery of possession. Accordingly, the application for leave to defend filed by the petitioner was dismissed and an eviction order was passed against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent/landlord.