VIJAY NAYYAR Vs. OM PRAKASH MALIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present 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 order dated 29.01.2015 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller (hereinafter referred to as the ARC) whereby the eviction petition filed by the respondent under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act was allowed and an eviction order was passed against the petitioner/tenant.

(2.) The respondent/landlord filed the eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act for the shop on the ground floor of the property bearing No. B-202, Nehru Vihar, Timarpur, Delhi. It was the case of the respondent/landlord that the petitioner/tenant was inducted into the premises as a licensee free of cost. As the petitioner did not vacate the property, the respondent filed a suit for possession before a civil court. However, on account of legal advice received and also on account of the fact that the petitioner had taken a plea that he is a tenant in the demised premises at a monthly rent of Rs.1500/-, the respondent states that instead of fighting a long drawn battle against the petitioner, the respondent withdrew the suit with liberty to file the present petition.

(3.) It is further stated that the property in question is constructed till the second floor and the respondent is the owner of the same. On the ground floor there are three shops out of which one is in possession of the petitioner, namely, the demised shop and the other two shops, it is urged, have been sold/disposed of by the respondent sometime back as he was under heavy debts and from the sale proceeds, he has discharged his pending loans. First floor of the property consists of one room, kitchen, bath and toilet in which the respondent resides with his wife. On the second floor two sons of the respondent are residing in two rooms i.e. in one room his elder son, namely, Jatin Malik is living with his wife and son-Master Hardik whereas the younger son, namely, Bhuvesh Malik is residing in the other room. The respondent had taken voluntary retirement from NDPL on 31.01.2004. The respondent has also two married daughters staying in Delhi who keep visiting the respondents. It was urged that the respondent is facing financial crises as he has very little income as he is idle. Further his younger son is to be accommodated in some business. Hence, the respondent and his younger son want to start a business of laptop and mobile repairing from the premises in question. Hence, the eviction petition.