KIRPAL KOHLI Vs. KHAIRATI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision challenges the impugned order dated 10.07.2018 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller -02 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter 'Trial Court') in Eviction Petition E110/2016 (New No.110/2016) titled Khairati Lal vs Kirpal Chand Kohli filed by the landlord/respondent herein against the tenant/petitioner under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act).

(2.) The learned Trial Court vide impugned order dismissed the application for leave to defend filed by the petitioner and passed an eviction order in respect of one shop bearing No.171, Subzi Mandi, Main Road, Delhi 110007 (hereinafter 'tenanted shop').

(3.) Before coming to the legality of the impugned order, let me first find out the grounds for filing of the eviction petition by the respondent. The respondent has filed the petition under Section 14 (1) (e) DRC Act alleging to be aged 77 years, suffering from old age diseases and has filed medical papers and that he need the tenanted shop for him as also for his son Ajju Kumar @ Ajay Jain, having done ITI Turner Diploma Course in the year 1997, but is presently unemployed, helping his father/ respondent in his shop. The respondent alleges his son namely Mr.Ajay Jain intends to start his motor parts business and since is now married, he requires to earn his livelihood. Though the respondent has alleged his younger son is doing B.A. is aged 19 years and daughter is aged 12 years; but now says his younger son is 39 years of age and his daughter is married.