GURDEEP SINGH Vs. GURMAIL SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present revision 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 impugn the order dated 05.10.2016 by which the Additional Rent Controller (in short the 'ARC') dismissed the application of the petitioner seeking leave to defend and passed an eviction order against the petitioner.

(2.) The respondents filed the present eviction petition under section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act regarding the property being No.2348-B1, Raja Park, Shakur Basti, Delhi- 110 034. It was urged in the petition that the petitioner is a tenant of the ground floor @ Rs. 320/- per month. The respondents No.1 to 4 are joint owners of the property in question, which is a built up house on half portion of the plot No.36 measuring 72 1/2 sq.yds. The property was purchased by Smt.Preetam Kaur by registered sale deed in 1971. She died intestate on 09.09.1982 and is survived by the four respondents who are now the joint owners of the property. Late Smt.Preetam Kaur had inducted the petitioner as a tenant. It is urged that respondent No.1 is without any work and needs to start his own business of a computer training centre. The requirement is of space of one room/hall which is to be used as reception and one big room/hall which is required to be used as class room for computer training centre. There is also a requirement of respondent No.2 who wants to settle his wife. Respondent No.2 has a growing family which includes his wife and two daughters of marriageable age. It is urged that the rest of the space of the suit premises is required by respondent No.2 to open a boutique for his wife. It is urged that besides the said premises, the respondents have no alternative commercial property to carry on their own work.

(3.) The ARC by the impugned order noted that there is no dispute between the parties about the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant. On the issue of bonafide requirement, the ARC noted the requirement of the respondents. It also noted the stand of the petitioner that the premises is a residential premises and the same is also being used by the respondents as their residence. The ARC noted the stand of the petitioner in the rejoinder that the tenanted premises is a residential-cum-commercial property. It also noted that the electricity bill annexed alongwith the reply reflects the tariff category to be Non-Domestic Low Tension (hereinafter referred to as the 'NDLT') which shows that the electricity is being used for commercial purposes. Hence, the area can be used by the respondents for commercial purposes. The court concluded that there is nothing on record to show that the requirement of the respondents is not bonafide. On the issue of availability of suitable alternative accommodation, it noted the stand of the respondents that they do have any other suitable commercial space available. It noted the availability of other accommodation with the respondents which was actually a residence. The contention of the petitioner was rejected. Accordingly, the ARC dismissed the application seeking leave to defend and passed an eviction order.