SURENDER SINGH Vs. NARENDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petition at hand has been filed seeking to assail the order dated 31.03.2012 passed by the Additional Rent Controller on the file of eviction case (E-185/2011) thereby dismissing the application of the petitioner (tenant/respondent before the Rent Controller) seeking leave to defend the proceedings arising out of the petition presented by the respondent (landlord/petitioner before the Rent Controller) on the ground of bonafide need under Section 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and in the consequence granting an order of eviction in respect of demised premises described as one shop admeasuring 26.5" x 8.25" bearing shop no. 3926 & 3919/28, now known as No. 3926 forming part of property Nos. 3926, 3919/28, 3924/1 & staircase no. 3924, Abdullah Building, Roshnara Road, Subzi Mandi, Delhi -110007 as shown in red colour in the site plan attached with the petition (hereinafter referred to as "the suit premises").

(2.) It is undisputed that the tenant/petitioner herein was inducted in the suit premises by the erstwhile owner Dhanno Devi. It is also undisputed that Dhanno Devi, the original landlady, whose title to the property cannot be challenged by the tenant, died in the year 2002. It is also undisputed that the landlord (the respondent herein) is her son who has placed on record a copy of the Will duly registered, left behind by Dhanno Devi thereby bequeathing her estate in favour of her legal heirs that include him (the respondent), the other legal heirs including Bimla Devi, the daughter of Dhanno Devi and sister of the respondent.

(3.) The petition seeking vacation of the subject premises under Section 14 (1) (e), Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 was filed on the grounds that the respondent is a diploma holder in Instruments Mechanics from ITI, Delhi, engaged in some private job, earning his livelihood by selling household goods as a hawker on foothpaths and local weekly markets and that he requires a regular place for his business and therefore was in an urgent need of the suit premises.