ROSHAN LAL JINDAL Vs. SURENDER KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions seek to assail the orders dated 05.06.2015 of the Additional Rent Controller passed on the files of the eviction petitions (E.No.58/13, E.No. 60/13 and E.No.59/13) whereby the applications of the petitioners for leave to contest were declined and the eviction orders passed against each petitioner.

(2.) The respondent in these three petitions is common, the petitioners being tenants in occupation of different portions in his property. The grounds on which the respondent sought eviction of these petitioners, as pleaded before the Rent Controller in the eviction petitions simultaneously presented, are identical. Each of these cases was considered, at the stage of request of the petitioners for grant of leave to contest simultaneously, such consideration having led to similar orders being passed on 05.06.2015. Since the contentions of the petitioners are identical and since they give rise to common questions of fact and law, these petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this common order.

(3.) The respondent had filed the cases on 02.07.2013 against the petitioners on the ground of bonafide need under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 in respect of the shops (nos.3, 2 and 4 respectively) forming part of property bearing no.919/7, Mehrauli, New Delhi-110 030 admittedly in their respective possession and use as tenants, the case of the respondent (landlord), as pleaded in each of the three petitions, being that he needs the space forming part of the three shops for setting up his younger son Ashutosh Gupta in the business of mobiles and electronic showroom for which he does not have any other suitable alternative accommodation. The landlord (respondent) had, inter alia, pleaded that on the date of filing of the petition, he was a senior citizen (aged 65 years) suffering from various ailments, he being desirous of setting up his said younger son in such business with the intention that he would also assist the said son in running the said business and thereby would be "fruitfully occupying himself". He declared in the petitions that he does not own or possess any property other than the property referred to above, there consequently being no alternative premises available. Alongwith the eviction petitions site plan was filed which indicates the accommodation available at the ground floor of the property, it comprising of a portion which is residential in one half, the other half divided into four portions, which are the shops which have been in use of different tenants including the petitioner(s) herein, the fourth portion being a shop larger in size (12 ft x 26 ft.), there being no explanation whatsoever in the averments as to its current use.