RANJIV KHANNA Vs. SHYAM LAL MITTAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition is filed under Section 25 B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'DRC Act') seeking to challenge the eviction order dated 24.09.2015 passed by the Additional Rent Controller (hereinafter referred to as the 'ARC') under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act.

(2.) Respondent No. 1 filed the present eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act regarding property being Shop, Ground Floor and Basement in property bearing No. 506, Katra Asharfi, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-06 against the petitioner and respondent No. 4. Respondents No. 2 and 3 were impleaded as proforma parties, being co-owners of the tenanted property. The premises were rented out 30 years back. It was the claim of respondent No. 1 that the petitioner/tenant had sub-let the property to a third party. The property in question is said to have been purchased by Late Smt. Bhagwati Devi in favour of her minor children, namely, Sh. Sat Narain and Sh. Din Dayal vide registered sale deed dated 02.03.1934. Subsequently, Sh. Sat Narain became the owner of the property. Respondents No. 1 and 2 are the sons of Sh. Sat Narain. It is stated that respondents No. 1 and 2 were doing wholesale business of trading in cloth but the said business failed and respondents No. 1 and 2 suffered heavy losses. Their business was closed down. Various litigation's were started with the bank. Due to financial difficulties, the father of respondents No. 1 and 2 had to sell most of the portions of property bearing No. 505-506, Katra Asharfi and 1047, Maliwara, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. Respondent No. 2 in the present petition is the brother of respondent No. 1 and is arrayed as respondent in the eviction petition. It is stated that the family of respondent No. 1 comprises himself, his wife and his one son, namely, Amit Mittal, wife of Amit Mittal, grandchildren and a daughter. The said Amit Mittal is in the business of trading in Aluminum at Chawri Bazar, Delhi but he has no place to sit and deal with customers. He needs space to sit and the tenanted shop is the most suitable place from where the son of respondent No. 1 can operate his business. Hence, the present eviction petition was filed.

(3.) The ARC noted the submissions of the petitioner, namely, (a) that respondent No. 1 is not the owner of the property; (b) that the father of respondent No. 1 had sold the said tenanted premises and had even executed an agreement to sell 20 years back and (c) that the son of respondent No. 1 i.e. Sh. Amit Mittal is already having suitable accommodation for running his business of Aluminum in Chawri Bazar, Delhi. The ARC noted that it is nowhere disputed that the petitioner is the tenant of respondent No. 1. Counterfoils of the rent receipts have also been placed on record by respondent No. 1. Hence, the ARC concluded that the relationship of landlord and tenant stands established. On the issue of agreement to sell as raised by the petitioner, it noted that copy of the agreement to sell or receipt of payment of sale consideration have not been placed on record. Hence, it noted that the said averment is only a bald averment without any substance. On bona fide requirement, the ARC noted that the shop is required for the son of respondent No. 1 to run his Aluminum business. It noted that the petitioner has failed to mention the number or description of the premises in Chandni Chowk from where, according to the petitioner, the son of respondent No. 1 is carrying on the business of Aluminum. The contention being a bald averment without any substance, the ARC rejected the same. To the same effect was the issue of alternative suitable accommodation. Rejecting the contentions of the petitioner, the ARC dismissed the application for leave defend and passed an eviction order.