SAT PARKASH & ANR Vs. RAVINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petition at hand was preferred to question the correctness, legality and propriety of judgment dated 04.12.2014 passed by the Additional Rent Controller on the file of eviction case (E No.14/12) which was instituted by the petitioners on 15.09.2012 seeking eviction of the respondent from the tenanted premises described as shop no.36, forming part of property No.17-18, Damodar Park, Dilshad Garden, G.T. Road, Shahdara, Delhi-110095, under Section 14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The eviction petition was put to trial, presumably after grant of leave to contest being granted to the respondent and, in the course of such trial, the first petitioner Sat Prakash having been examined as the solitary witness (PW- 1) for the petitioners and the respondent appearing as a witness (RW-1) for himself.

(2.) The Additional Rent Controller, by judgment dated 04.12014, has accepted the case of the petitioners as to the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, also holding the petitioners to be the owner of the subject property. He, however, was not satisfied with the proof adduced as to the claim of the petitioners for bona fide need of the subject premises and also as to non-availability of suitable alternative accommodation for such purposes.

(3.) The petitioners have relied upon a legal notice sent on 24.05.2012 (Ex.RW-1/12) by the respondent contending that the premises i.e. the tenanted shop was in dilapidated condition requiring repairs in which regard the landlord, i.e. the petitioners had shown utter neglect. The respondent while contesting the case for eviction on the ground of bona fide need had pleaded that the landlord had other similarly placed shops available to them in the same property of which the tenanted portion forms a part, which were lying vacant and available for the running of the business for which his eviction was sought.