MANGU RAM Vs. H L SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner aggrieved by an order dated 21st January, 2008 of learned ARC dismissing his application for leave to defend has preferred this revision under Section 25 B (8) of Delhi Rent Control Act.

(2.) THE landlord filed an Eviction Petition against the petitioner seeking eviction of the petitioner from first floor consisting of a room and a kitchen in property no. 2089, Katra Gokul Shah, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi. The contention of the landlord being that he was having his business establishment at the ground floor of this property no. 2089, Katra Gokul Shah, Bazar Sita Ram, delhi. He had purchased this property from previous owner on 28. 9. 2000. He was a heart patient. He was presently living at an MIG flat situated in Shalimar bagh owned by his wife. He has to come daily from Shalimar Bagh to the suit premises for his business despite the fact that he was not in a condition fit enough to travel daily from Shalimar Bagh to Bazar Sita Ram. In order to avoid his exertion, he wants to reside with his family in the suit property. He also took the plea that he was suffering from heart ailments and this traveling and climbing to second floor at his present residence was causing concern to him. He filed record of his ailments showing that he was suffering from diabetes, nephropathy, retinopathy as well as heart problem.

(3.) THE tenant filed leave to defend alleging that the respondent was having a built-up kothi on an area of 1,000 square yards in Shalimar Bagh consisting of ground floor, first floor and second floor and the family of the petitioner consisted only of himself, wife and unmarried daughter and the existing accommodation was sufficient for him. It was pleaded that since the landlord was a heart patient, the area of Bazar Sita Ram was not good for him and area of Shalimar Bagh where he was living would be more good for him. It was not disputed that the tenant had business establishment at ground floor of the property in question. The ailments of the tenant were not disputed. The learned ARC after considering all the facts came to conclusion that no triable issue has been raised by the petitioner and dismissed the application for leave to contest.