KULDEEP RAJ ARORA Vs. ROHTASH KUMAR SEEWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition challenges the order dated 06.09.2017 passed in eviction petition E-545/2017 under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereafter 'DRC Act') whereby the leave to defend application was dismissed and eviction was allowed.

(2.) The respondents have filed an eviction petition E-545/2017 in respect of the shop admeasuring 7' x 14' situated at ground floor in house No.37/3052, Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 of Main Hardhyan Singh Road (hereafter 'tenanted shop'). The said shop is required by respondent no.1 for his professional purposes viz. he being a lawyer, has been practicing since 2005 and has no suitable accommodation in Delhi to be used as his office for practicing as a lawyer. The grounds for his bonafide need are mentioned in para 18(a)(ii) of the petition as under:-

(3.) In his leave to defend application the petitioner has alleged (a) the petitioner had paid an amount of Rs.5,25,000 at the time of construction and hence the petitioner is an owner of the super structure being constructed on property No.37/3052, Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005; (b) the respondent no.1 though alleges he requires the premises for running his office but has concealed the fact he is an ordinary resident of property 37/3052 (supra) per Govt. records i.e., electoral role and his ID card of Bar Council of Delhi shows his official address to be the same and also other records shows he is living in the premises 37/3052 (supra) and hence his need is for additional accommodation thus the leave to defend ought to have been granted; and (c) the respondent no.1 has other alternative accommodation viz. his office at 40, Railway Enclave, San Martin Marg, Chanakya Puri, New Delhi-110021; 16/1310, Padam Singh Road, Bapa Nagar, Opposite Shiv Mandir, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 and another office at A-509, Som Dutt Chambers-1, 5, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi.