RAKESH TALWAR Vs. SUDESH GULATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition is filed under section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'The DRC Act') seeking to challenge the eviction order dated 16.7.2015 passed by the Additional Rent Controller (hereinafter referred to as the ARC) under Sec. 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act.

(2.) The respondent filed an Eviction Petition for shop Private No.4, front side in the property No.H-61, Kalkaji, New Delhi. It was urged that the shop was let out by the father of the respondent to the petitioner sometime in 1981-8 The father of the respondent Shri Hansraj was the absolute owner and left behind a Will dated 30.5.2007. In view of the Will on the death of the father the respondent and his elder son Shri Sanjay Gulati became joint owners. It is further urged that the son of the respondent Shri Lucky, due to non-availability of commercial space is running a stall of eatable items on footpath. He has experience of running a restaurant and requires the tenanted premises alongwith two other shops to run a restaurant. It is also pointed out that there is paucity of accommodation for residence of the family of the respondents who are also living in the same building. The said respondents have two rooms for their residence and due to paucity of accommodation they have converted one shop into a room. One shop is being used by the respondent for store. It is urged that the said shop is not suitable for running of a restaurant and the respondent?s son Shri Lucky requires three shops being private shop Nos.4 and 6. This is including the tenanted shop in question for running of the restaurant. Other two separate petitions are also said to have been filed/are being filed.

(3.) The petitioners filed a cryptic application for leave to defend. The only argument raised was that there is no information given as to who is occupying shop Nos.8, 9 and 10. It was further stated that there are three shops on the western side facing northern side which are lying vacant and the possession of the shops are with the respondents. That in sum and substance was the ground on which leave to defend was sought. The respondent filed his reply to the said application and denied that the said shops are lying vacant. It was stated that Shop No.9 and 10 have been converted into one shop and are under tenancy of a tenant. It was further stated that the said shop is facing a small gali and is not suitable for running of a restaurant. Shop No.8 was being used by the daughter-in-law of the respondent for running a boutique. Shop No.7 has been converted into a room to meet the residential requirements of the respondent. It is also stated that the respondent requires Rs.shape accommodation for running the restaurant and the requirement will only be met with the shops where the petitioner is a tenant alongwith two adjacent shops.