Delhi District Court
Sardar Mehar Singh vs Shri M.C. Goyal on 5 September, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MS. SUGANDHA AGGARWAL, ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER: NORTHWEST:ROHINI: DELHI E.No.33/2012 [U/s 14(1)(e) of DRC Act, 1958] Unique Case Identification No. 02404C0107692012 Sardar Mehar Singh, Son of Sardar Saudagar Singh, Resident of H.No. 2372, Sector44C, Chandigarh, U.T. Also at : 1542, IInd Floor, Main Bazar, Tri Nagar, Delhi - 110035. ... Petitioner Versus Shri M.C. Goyal, Son of Shri P.C. Goyal, Prop. M/s Goyal Jewellers, (Formerly known as Gupta Jewellers) Private No.1 & 2 at Ground Floor forming part of Property No. 1542, Tri Nagar, Delhi 110035. ... Respondent Date of institution of petition 21.4.2012 Date on which order was reserved : 21.08.2012. Date of decision : 05.09.2012. ORDER
1. By this order, I shall decide the application seeking leave to E.No.33/2012 Page No. 1 of 27 defend filed by the respondent under Section 25B (5) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
2. This is an eviction petition filed by the petitioner seeking eviction of the respondent under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
3. The Petitioner has averred that the respondent is his tenant with respect to Shops No.1 and 2 at ground floor of property bearing No. 1542, Tri Nagar, Delhi - 110035 (hereinafter to be referred as "the suit premises").
4. It is further averred in the petition that respondent was inducted as tenant on 18.10.1978 by Late father of petitioner in Shop No.1. Subsequently, the respondent took shop No.2 at the ground floor from one Mr.Suresh Kumar who had been inducted as tenant in shop No.2 by late father of the petitioner. The father of the petitioner in order to avoid any controversy, accepted the respondent as his tenant for the entire merged shop (the suit premises) and at present respondent is the tenant in the suit premises at a monthly rate of rent of Rs.1350/ excluding electricity and E.No.33/2012 Page No. 2 of 27 water charges. It is further averred that after the death of father, the petitioner being the son became owner of the suit premises and a certificate dated 5.3.1987 was issued in his favour under Estate Duty Act, 1953.
5. It is further averred in the petition that the suit premises are required by the petitioner for his younger son S. Charanjit Singh who at present is residing at second floor of some other property. It is averred that S. Charanjit Singh is practicing as a reiki healer. His patients involve old and sick persons. The said patients find it difficult to climb upto the second floor. The suit premises are situated at the ground floor and there is no suitable alternate accommodation available with the younger son of the petitioner which can be used by him as business place. Therefore, the suit premises are required bona fide by the younger son of the petitioner to run his business as reiki healer. It is also averred that petitioner has also retired from service and he also wants to assist his younger son in the business.
6. Respondent was duly served with summons of the petition and E.No.33/2012 Page No. 3 of 27 has filed his application for leave to defend within the prescribed period. In the application for leave to defend, respondent has denied the ownership of the petitioner. He has, however, admitted that petitioner is landlord of the suit premises. Further respondent has denied the other averments made in the petition. Respondent has stated in his application for leave to defend that the details of extent of accommodation available to the younger son of the petitioner have been wilfully concealed by the petitioner. The younger son of the petitioner is in possession of entire building i.e. Premises No.1542, Tri Nagar, Delhi and not merely of the second floor. It is further contended that even the building in which the suit premises are located is having several floors. First floor of the property has been let out to Canara Bank which is fetching huge amount of rent to the elder son of the petitioner. It is further contended that there is no bona fide requirement on the part of the petitioner. The younger son of the petitioner is 48 years old and not at all dependent on the petitioner. Petitioner wanted to increase the rent and respondent did not agree. The present eviction petition was filed by the petitioner just to harass the E.No.33/2012 Page No. 4 of 27 respondent. It is further contended that there are triable issues in favour of the respondent and therefore leave to defend may be allowed.
7. Reply was filed by the petitioner wherein he denied the contentions raised by the respondent in the application and reiterated the averments made in the eviction petition. It was stated in the reply that younger son of the petitioner is residing at the second floor and also running his business from second floor. It has been reiterated that owing to the nature of business, it is difficult to run the same from second floor and therefore the suit premises are most suitable for the younger son of the petitioner.
8. Arguments have been heard on behalf of both the parties.
9. Ld. Counsel for the respondent has argued that though respondent has admitted that petitioner is landlord of the suit premises, ownership has been disputed. For the purpose of eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the petitioner has to prove ownership unlike eviction petitions filed on any other ground under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. It is further argued that vague pleas have been taken in the E.No.33/2012 Page No. 5 of 27 petition and extent of accommodation available with the younger son of the petitioner has not been mentioned. The petition is not supported with any affidavit of younger son of petitioner. In fact, the elder son of petitioner is the owner of the suit premises as he has been collecting rent from the respondent. It is further argued that the present petition has been filed with malafide intentions just to harass the respondent. Counsel for respondent has relied upon the judgments passed in the following cases : i. Precision Steel & Engineering Works Vs. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal AIR 1982 SC 1513.
ii. Col. Surinder Pal Singh Bhattal (Retd.) Vs. Rakesh Kumar Jain AIR 1996 SC 1907.
iii.Hakim Misbahuddin Vs. Abdul Shakoor, IX1987 (2) All India Rent Control Journal 294.
iv.Mohd. Jafar & Ors. Vs. Nasra Begum 191 (2012) DLT 401. v. In the matter of Contempt Proceedings Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini 2009 (2) RCR 326 vi.Kizhakkayil Suhara & Ors. Vs. Manhantavida Aboobacker (dead) by LRs. (2001) 8 SCC 19.
E.No.33/2012 Page No. 6 of 27
10. Counsel for petitioner has argued that once the respondent has admitted that petitioner is the landlord, he is estopped from challenging the ownership as for the purpose of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, ownership is not necessary to be proved. No triable issue has been raised by the respondent in his leave to defend application. It is also argued that it is settled law that for the purpose of business, ground floor is more suitable than the first or second floor. Counsel for petitioner has relied upon the judgments passed in the following cases :
i. Meenakshi Vs. Ramesh Khanna & Anr. 60 (1995) DLT 524. ii. Rajender Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. Leela Wati & Ors. 155(2008) DLT 383.
iii.Mukesh Kumar Vs. Rishi Prakash 174 (2010) DLT 64. iv.Mohd. Usman Vs. Siraj Ahmed 154 (2008) DLT 342. v. Sanjay Mehra Vs. Suni Malhotra 170 (2010) DLT 797. vi.Uday Shankar Upadhyay Vs. Naveen Maheshwari (2010) 1 SCC 503.
vii.Surinder Singh Vs. Jasbir Singh 172 (2010) DLT 611. viii.Kharati Ram Khanna & Sons Vs. Krishan Luthra 172 (2010) DLT 551.
E.No.33/2012 Page No. 7 of 27
11. I have considered the rival contentions of both parties and have carefully perused the record.
12. In order to prove that petitioner is entitled to an order of eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the petitioner has to prove the following ingredients : i. That the petitioner is the owner and landlord of suit premises; ii. That the suit premises is required bona fide by the petitioner for himself or any of his family members ;
iii.That the petitioner has no other reasonably suitable accommodation.
Each of these ingredient is assessed separately hereinafter (A) THE PETITIONER IS THE OWNER AND LANDLORD OF SUIT PREMISES
13. The respondent while filing the application for leave to defend has disputed the ownership of the petitioner with respect to the suit premises. Respondent in his application and affidavit filed under Section 25B of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 has admitted that the petitioner is E.No.33/2012 Page No. 8 of 27 the landlord of the suit premises. However, he has denied that petitioner is the owner of the suit premises. On the other hand, in reply to leave to defend application, petitioner has reiterated his stand that he is the owner of the suit premises.
14. In the petition, it has been averred that the suit premises originally belonged to deceased father of petitioner. Petitioner inherited the suit premises after the death of his father. Ld. Counsel for petitioner has argued that under the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, a tenant is debarred from challenging the ownership of the petitioner. In this respect, counsel for petitioner has relied upon the judgments in the cases of Meenakshi Vs. Ramesh Khanna & Anr. 60 (1995) DLT 524 and Rajender Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. Leela Wati & Ors. 155(2008) DLT
383.
15. On the other hand, counsel for respondent has argued that unlike other grounds of eviction as given in Section 14 (1) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, for the purpose of Section 14 (1) (e), landlord is required to prove ownership with regard to the suit premises. If the landlord fails to E.No.33/2012 Page No. 9 of 27 prove that he is the owner of the suit premises, he is not entitled to an order of eviction.
16. Firstly, it is settled law that for the purpose of eviction under Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, petitioner does not have to prove absolute ownership of the suit premises. What he has to show to the Court is that he is more than a tenant. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment passed in the case of Rajender Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. Leela Wati & Ors. 155(2008) DLT 383 wherein it has been held as under : "It is settled law that for the purpose of Section 14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, a landlord is not supposed to prove absolute ownership as required under Transfer of Property Act. He is required to show only that he is more than a tenant. In this case, the landlady had placed on record the documents by which she became owner. The attornment given by the erstwhile landlord in her favour as well as an admission made by the tenant by filing petition under Section 27 of Delhi Rent Control Act acknowledging the landlordship of landlady. Thus, the conclusion arrived at by the ARC regarding ownership and relationship of landlord and tenant were based on sound legal position and the cogent material before it."
Further in the case of Sh. A.K. Nayar v. Sh. Mahesh Prasad, 153 (2008) DLT 423, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that: "It is settled law that under Delhi Rent Control Act, a E.No.33/2012 Page No. 10 of 27 landlord seeking eviction of premises for his bonafide requirement is not required to show his absolute ownership over the property. The word 'owner' has not been defined in the Act and concept of ownership for the purpose of Delhi Rent Control Act has to be understood in proper context. If a person has let out the premises as an Attorney of some other person for the benefit of some other person and he is only collecting rents and passing it on to the person for whose benefit the premises is let out, then such a person cannot be considered as owner unless he is able to show that the person for whom he is acting has relinquished his rights in his favour and after letting it out as Attorney he subsequently became the owner. This Court on a number of occasions, held that the concept of ownership under Delhi Rent Control Act is different from the concept of ownership under Transfer of Property Act and ownership under DRC Act it is not the absolute ownership."
17. Further it has been held that in an application for leave to defend if tenant is challenging the ownership then it is for the tenant to disclose as to who is the owner. Reference in this regard may be made to Rajender Kumar Sharma & Ors. (supra) wherein it has been held as under : "... Where a tenant denies ownership of landlord, he is obliged to disclose who was owner/landlord and to whom rent was being paid..."
18. In the present case, it is stated by the respondent in the instant application that the elder son of the petitioner is collecting rent for the suit premises. It is argued by learned counsel for respondent that this shows E.No.33/2012 Page No. 11 of 27 that it is the elder son of the petitioner who is the owner of the suit premises. But the respondent has not placed any document to substantiate his plea that petitioner is not the owner. Further it has been held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in A.K. Nayar's case (supra) that a person who is merely collecting rent for the benefit of some other person and passing it on to that other person cannot be called as landlord. Therefore, mere fact that elder son of the petitioner is collecting the rent will not made him landlord. In fact the respondent himself has admitted that landlord of the suit premises is the petitioner. The contention is rejected.
19. On the other hand, Petitioner has stated that he has inherited the suit premises from his father. Respondent has admitted that originally the owner of suit premises was father of petitioner who has expired. Respondent has not stated that there was any Will by way of which the suit premises has been bequeathed in favour of elder son of the petitioner and not in favour of petitioner. As discussed above, respondent has to show that if the petitioner is not the owner then who is the owner and in that respect he has to place cogent material on record. Vague pleas in the E.No.33/2012 Page No. 12 of 27 application shall not entitle the respondent to leave to defend. Here respondent has admitted that petitioner is the landlord of the suit premises and petitioner has disclosed as to how he has become the owner of the suit premises. Therefore, in my considered opinion, there is no triable issue raised by the respondent in his application with respect to relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties so as to give a chance to respondent to lead evidence for the same. On the other hand, petitioner has successfully established that he is the landlord and owner of the suit premises and respondent is the tenant under the petitioner. (B) & (C) SUIT PREMISES IS REQUIRED BONA FIDE BY PETITIONER FOR HIMSELF OR ANY OF HIS FAMILY MEMBERS AND THAT PETITIONER HAS NO OTHER REASONABLY SUITABLE ACCOMMODATION.
20. In the present petition, petitioner has stated that he requires the suit premises for starting officecumclinic for his younger son who is a reiki practitioner. It is further contended that the patients of the younger son of the petitioner include old and sick persons who find it difficult to E.No.33/2012 Page No. 13 of 27 climb stairs to the second floor from where at present the younger son of the petitioner is running his business and therefore, the suit premises are required bona fide by the petitioner.
21. Respondent while filing the present application for leave to defend has challenged the plea raised by the petitioner on the following grounds: i. Petitioner cannot seek eviction for the bona fide requirement of his son who is already selfsufficient and not dependent on the petitioner.
ii. The son of the petitioner is already running his business from some other premises and the said fact has been concealed by the petitioner.
22. With respect to first contention, counsel for petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Kharati Ram Khanna & Sons Vs. Krishna Luthra 172 (2010) DLT 551 wherein it has been held that need of landlord to settle business of two sons separately in two shops was bona fide.
E.No.33/2012 Page No. 14 of 27
23. It is a settled law that landlord can seek eviction for bona fide need of himself or his family members. Being a father, he is under an obligation to settle his son. If the son of the petitioner is not comfortable in the premises in which he is already running his clinic and if the petitioner feels that the suit premises are most suitable then being a father, petitioner is under an obligation to make available more suitable premises to his son for his business. It has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd Ayub Vs. Mukesh Chand 2012 (1) RCR (Rent) 56 (SC) that the Court shall consider the need of the landlord for his self employed son or married or unmarried or widowed or divorced or judicially separated daughter or a male lineal descendant as a bona fide need while dealing with an application for eviction under Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Therefore the plea taken by the counsel for respondent that the petitioner cannot seek eviction for the bona fide requirement of his son is not tenable.
24. Now the Court has to assess whether the requirement of son of E.No.33/2012 Page No. 15 of 27 the petitioner is bona fide or not and whether any triable issue has been raised in respondent's application.
25. Petitioner has contended that the younger son of the petitioner is practicing reiki health care in which he is healing old and sick persons. Presently, son of the petitioner is operating from the second floor of his residence. Old people find it difficult to climb on second floor and therefore the suit premises being situated at the ground floor are more suitable for the business of younger son of the petitioner. It is further contended that in a number of judgments, it has been held that ground floor is more suitable for business purposes as compared to first or second floor. Counsel for petitioner has relied upon the judgment in the case of Surinder Singh Vs. Jasbir Singh 172 (2010) DLT 611 and Uday Shankar Upadhyay Vs. Naveen Maheshwari (2010) 1 SCC 503.
26. Respondent has specifically denied the said bona fide need of the petitioner in his application. The only plea taken by the respondent is that the son of the petitioner is already running his business from the second floor of the residence.
E.No.33/2012 Page No. 16 of 27
27. I have considered the rival contentions of both parties in this respect.
28. Firstly, we have to see whether any triable issue has been raised by the respondent in his application for leave to defend so as to allow the same. During arguments, counsel for respondent has argued that leave to defend shall be granted because petition is silent about the extent of accommodation available with the petitioner, where the younger son of the petitioner is residing and because the petition is not supported with the affidavit of younger son of petitioner. However, leave to defend can be granted if the respondent is able to show that he has certain material in his possession which he can bring in evidence so as to falsify the claim of the petitioner. Leave to defend cannot be granted on the ground that petitioner has omitted to furnish certain details in the Court.
In the case of Narinder Kumar Raseen Vs. Usha Awasthy ILR (2008) Supp. 12 Delhi 92, it has been held that: "...If landlord places on record the rent agreement, rent receipts, and other material to show the disputes raised about ownership, relationship of tenant and landlord, and letting purpose were raised E.No.33/2012 Page No. 17 of 27 falsely, the rent controller is bound to consider all the material and arrive at a logical conclusion whether the tenant raised genuine pleas for leave to defend. Affidavits cannot be considered on their face value. A triable issue is one for the decision of which trial and recording of evidence is necessary. No triable issue can be raised where tenant has no privity to the facts. Triable issue is raised by the tenant only when tenant prima facie discloses evidence in his possession about the allegations made by him and the evidence is admissible under law so that the alleged fact can be proved in the Court, and if proved, it would disentitle the landlord to have eviction decree. Court on the basis of affidavits and material can come to a conclusion whether the affidavit filed alongwith the leave to defend has some substance in it or it was just an affidavit to raise unnecessary issues to gain leave to defend. ARC on the basis of affidavit and documents on record rightly held no triable issue raised. Petition is dismissed."
In the case of Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta AIR 1999 SC 2507, it was held : "...The landlord may convince the Court that the alternate residential accommodation though available is still of no consequence as the same is not reasonably suitable to satisfy the felt need which the landlord has succeeded in demonstrating objectively to exist. Needless to say that an alternate accommodation, to entail denial of the claim of the landlord, must be reasonably suitable, obviously in comparison with the suit accommodation wherefrom the landlord is seeking eviction. Convenience and safety of the landlord and his family members would be relevant factors. While considering the totality of the circumstances, the Court may keep in view the profession or vocation of the landlord and his family members, their style of living, their habits and the background wherefrom they come..."
In the case of Rajender Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. Leelawati E.No.33/2012 Page No. 18 of 27 & Ors. ILR (2008) Supp. 12 Delhi 103, it has been observed as under : "If tenant in leave to defend pleads that the landlord was owner of another premises he has to place on record such documents to show that landlord was owner of that premises. Merely stating so on an affidavit would not be sufficient. Landlord produced documents to show that she had no share in the alleged property. Tenant had admitted relationship of landlordtenant in the petitions filed by him u/s 27 of DRC Act. Mere assertions by a tenant in respect of landlord's ownership of other buildings and in respect of alternate accommodation are not to be considered sufficient for grant of leave to defend. Extent of the family of the landlord undisputed. Requirement of landlady bonafide. In case of death of original tenant his legal heirs inherit tenancy as joint tenants and occupation of one tenant is occupation of all joint tenants. Not necessary for landlord to implead all legal heirs of the deceased tenant; it is sufficient if he impleads those living in the rented premises. Eviction petition against one of the joint tenants is an eviction petition against all the joint tenants. Revision petition dismissed."
29. Furthermore, petitioner has stated in his petition that his younger son is residing at the second floor of some other property. The address of said other property has been given by way of copy of visiting card filed alongwith the petition. In the application, no substantial plea has been taken by the respondent.
30. Ld. Counsel for petitioner has argued that bald pleas have been made by the respondent which cannot be made a ground for grant of leave E.No.33/2012 Page No. 19 of 27 to defend.
In the case of Mukesh Kumar Vs. Rishi Prakash 174 (2010) DLT 64, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held as under : "The tenant, no doubt, is entitled to raise all defences available to him in his application seeking leave to defend, but he cannot be seen to be shooting in the dark and raising all and sundry frivolous pleas in an irresponsible manner, only with a view to somehow get the desired leave to defend the eviction petition. Such conduct of the tenant will certainly mar his credibility and the Controller will see through such tactics on his part. He will not succumb to such moves of the tenant. Else, the same would defeat the purpose of providing a summary procedure for the disposal of the case, and would lead to miscarriage of justice."
In the case of Braham Kumar Vs. Sukhdev Singh 2012 (1) RCR (Rent) 201 (P&H), it has been observed as under : "A petition for eviction the ground of bonafide requirement is filed by landlord who is NRI. Leave to defend filed by tenant. Except the bald assertion on the part of tenant that requirement of landlord was not bonafide there is no material available on record to rebut the presumption drawn in favour of the landlord. In fact, nothing was pointed out as to how the requirement of landlord was not bonafide with regard to use and occupation of demised premises. Leave to defend refused."
31. In the present case, only bald pleas have been made by the respondent. It has been stated by the respondent that the younger son of the petitioner and his wife are residing in House No. 1019, Rani Bagh, E.No.33/2012 Page No. 20 of 27 Delhi and they own and possess the entire House No. 1019. Further respondent has not disclosed the source of knowledge or information that the son of the petitioner and his wife are owners of entire House No. 1019, Rani Bagh, Delhi. Further there is no detail given by the respondent as to the extent of accommodation of House No. 1019, Rani Bagh, Delhi and what portion is leased out. No name of tenants have been given by the respondent and neither it has been specifically stated as to whethre the said house is owned by the wife of younger son of the petitioner or by the younger son of the petitioner himself. Therefore the plea of counsel for petitioner that vague averments have been made by the respondent hold good. In view of the above discussed facts, it is clear that respondent has made bald pleas in the application and has not been able to furnish any cogent material so as to grant him leave to defend. In fact, a copy of electoral rolls filed by the respondent himself shows that there are five other people who are enrolled in the electoral rolls for House No. 1019, Rani Bagh, Delhi besides the younger son of petitioner and his wife which shows that House No. 1019, Rani Bagh, Delhi is not completely in E.No.33/2012 Page No. 21 of 27 possession of younger son of the petitioner.
32. Ld. Counsel for respondent has also argued that there have been material concealment on the part of the petitioner and therefore the petitioner is not entitled for eviction order. Firstly, while disposing off an application for leave to defend, Court has to see whether respondent has raised any triable issue so as to grant him leave to defend and in the present case, as discussed above, the respondent has failed to disclose any such triable issue so as to grant him leave to defend. Furthermore, petitioner in his petition has stated that the younger son of the petitioner at present is residing at some other property at the second floor. Address of the said property has been given by way of copy of visiting card annexed with the petition. There is no concealment on the part of the petitioner with respect to the present accommodation available with the younger son of the petitioner and respondent has not stated as to what are the other material concealments on the part of the petitioner in his petition so as to disentitle him from an eviction order.
33. Now, for the purpose of eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of Delhi E.No.33/2012 Page No. 22 of 27 Rent Control Act, the petitioner has to show that the premises are required bona fide by him. It is settled law that landlord is the best judge of his requirement and tenant cannot dictate terms to him.
In the case of Tagore Education Society Regd. Vs. Kamla Tandon 2009 (161) DLT 232, it was held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court as under: "21. As far as issue of bonafide need is concerned, I am in respectful agreement with Additional Rent Controller's view that petitioner had not placed any material on record to show that respondents' need for premises was not genuine or bonafide. Moreover, the Apex Court in Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta 80 (1999) DLT 731 and this Court in Rajender Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. Leelawati & Ors. 155(2008) DLT 383 have categorically held that bald and baseless plea/averments by tenant are not sufficient and that it is the landlord's wish as to how he/she is desirous to fulfill his/her requirement..."
In Sanjay Mehra & Ors. Vs. Sunil Malhotra & another, 170 (2010) DLT 797, it has been held that : "Burden was on tenant to show that landlord is disentitled to seek possession on ground of bonafide need.
xxx xxx xxx Unless the tenant is able to bring forth a credible challenge to the assertion of the bonafide need of the landlord,readily granting the tenant leave to defend has the danger of reducing every summary proceedings intended to facilitate expeditious disposal, into a regular trial, thus defeating the very object of the provision". E.No.33/2012 Page No. 23 of 27
In Mahendra Trivedi Vs. Jai Prakash Verma, 157 (2009) DLT 690, it is held that: "Neither the Court nor tenant can dictate to landlord mode and manner in which he should live or to prescribe him residential standard on their own. Every member of family requires at least comfortable place to sleep."
34. In the present case also, petitioner has stated that his younger son is a Reiki healer. Petitioner has placed on record all the copies of certificates showing that the son of the petitioner has attained training in Reiki Health Care. Petitioner has stated specifically as to why the suit premises are more suitable for business. It is stated that running a business from second floor is not appropriate as old and sick persons find it difficult to climb stairs and the suit premises being situated at ground floor are more suitable. He has specifically stated as to why ground floor is required and as to why ground floor is more suitable than the second floor. There is nothing to doubt the said averment of the petitioner or to show that the need of the petitioner as stated is not bona fide. Hence I am of the considered opinion that no triable issue has been raised by the respondent and I do not find any reason for granting leave to defend to the E.No.33/2012 Page No. 24 of 27 respondent.
RELIEF
35. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that no triable issue has been raised by the respondent so as to grant him leave to defend. Only certain assertions have been made by the respondent in his application. No material has been disclosed which is stated to be in possession of the respondent which he intends to bring in evidence so as to falsify the claim of the petitioner. On the other hand, the relationship of landlord and tenant has been duly established by the petitioner. As discussed above, bona fide need is also duly established by the averments made in the petition and the documents annexed therewith. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that petitioner is entitled for an order of eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act. Accordingly, application for leave to defend filed by the respondent is dismissed and the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of Delhi Rent Control Act is allowed. An order of E.No.33/2012 Page No. 25 of 27 eviction is hereby passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent in respect of the suit premises i.e. Shops No.1 and 2 at ground floor of property bearing No. 1542, Tri Nagar, Delhi - 110035 as shown in red colour in the site plan . However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to obtain the possession thereof before the expiry of a period of six months from the date of this order. File be consigned to Record Room after completion of necessary formalities.
( SUGANDHA AGGARWAL) Addl. Rent Controller (NW) Rohini, Delhi Announced in the open Court on this 5th day of September, 2012 E.No.33/2012 Page No. 26 of 27 E. No. 33/2012 5.9.2012 Present: Petitioner in person.
Respondent in person.
Vide separate order passed and announced in the open court today, application for leave to defend filed by the respondent has bene dismissed and the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of Delhi Rent Control Act has been allowed. An order of eviction is hereby passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent in respect of suit premises i.e. Shops No.1 and 2 at ground floor of property bearing No. 1542, Tri Nagar, Delhi - 110035 as shown in red colour in the site plan. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to obtain the possession thereof before the expiry of a period of six months from the date of this order. File be consigned to Record Room after completion of necessary formalities.
(Sugandha Aggarwal) A.R.C./NW/Rohini/5.9.2012 E.No.33/2012 Page No. 27 of 27