KRISHAN GOPAL Vs. SURINDER KUMAR CHADHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order dated 07.02.2018, by which the Additional Rent Controller, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as "the ARC"] declined leave to defend an eviction petition instituted by the respondents herein, and an order dated 04.08.2018, by which the ARC declined to review the order dated 07.02.2018. Facts

(2.) Krishan Gopal, the petitioner herein (hereinafter referred to as "the tenant") is the tenant under Surinder Kumar Chadha and Suresh Kumar Chadha (hereinafter referred to as "the landlords"), in respect of a shop bearing No. 2, situated at WZ-77/1, Block - D, Mohalla Gurunanak Pura, Fateh Nagar, Jail Road, New Delhi-110018 (hereinafter referred to as "the suit premises"). It is contended that the suit premises was let out by the landlords' father to the tenant in 1982. It measured approximately 340 sq.feet, of which approximately 125 sq.feet was the covered area at the time of letting, and the remaining approximately 215 sq.feet, an open area (which has subsequently unauthorizedly been covered). The monthly rent at the time of letting, which admittedly continues even today, was ?600.

(3.) On 02.11.2015, the landlords filed the eviction petition bearing number E.No.25974/2016 against the tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement of the suit premises. It was contended that the landlords, who are brothers, required the suit premises to set up their sons in business. The sons of the landlords were stated to be engaged in the business of steel furniture, alongwith the landlords in the shop run by them, but desirous of expanding and running their business according to their own wishes. With regard to alternative accommodation available with the landlords, it has been stated that the landlords are owners of four shops in the disputed premises, of which one is in their occupation and two others are on rent, in addition to the suit premises. The landlords have averred that there is no other alternative premises in which they can settle their children.