VINOD KUMAR SHARMA Vs. MITHLESH RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition filed under Section 25 B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the DRC Act), the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 11.01.2016 passed by the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) passing an eviction order under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act dismissing the application for leave to defend of the petitioner.

(2.) The respondent/landlord filed the present eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act for eviction of the tenant from the property D-34 A, Amar Colony, Nangloi, Delhi which was given on tenancy to the petitioner. The property comprises of one shop measuring 9' x 10.5'. The eviction petition states that the premises are required bona fide by the husband of the respondent as the husband of the respondent is running his business form a shop in Amar Colony Nangloi, Delhi which has been taken on rent form his elder brother, namely, Sh. Rakesh Kumar. It is stated that the said elder brother requires the said tenanted premises for his business and is pressurising the respondent's husband to vacate the said property and has also sent a legal notice.

(3.) The ARC by the impugned order noted that the petitioner has not pressed the defence of absence of landlord-tenant relationship. On bona fide requirements, it noted the submission of the petitioner that two shops in the premises in question are still lying vacant and that sufficient alternative accommodation is available with the respondent for starting a new business. The ARC noted the reply of the respondent regarding the said shop, namely, that the said shops are not suitable for the business of the husband of the respondent. The ARC noted the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that the tenanted shop lies between the two shops and therefore, the husband of the respondent cannot put them to use. Hence, the ARC noted that it is entirely the choice of the landlord as to how he wants to use the three shops together and the court ought not to interfere with the said decision. Hence, the ARC dismissed the application seeking leave to defend of the petitioner and passed an eviction order against the petitioner.