Najmi Waziri, J. - (1.) THE present petition impugns an order dated 01.11.2013 which dismissed the petitioner's (tenant's) application for leave to contest the eviction petition filed by the respondent under Sections 14(1)(e) and 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). The Trial Court found that the application did not disclose any triable issue for granting the leave. Accordingly an eviction order was passed in respect of tenanted premises being Shop No. 325, Punjabi Bazar, Kotla Mubarkapur, New Delhi -3.
(2.) THE eviction -petitioner had sought the tenant's eviction from the shop/tenanted premises for bona fide need on the following grounds: i.e., that he was due for retirement and needed to settle his married son for earning a livelihood for himself, his wife and his children; that the second and third petitioners too needed their own respective places for their own separate business; the second petitioner's employment yielded an income which was too meagre for his family of four: i.e., a wife and two children; the third petitioner who too was in a leased accommodation did not have a steady source of income for his family comprising of his wife and two children, besides being constantly under a palpable uncertainty and threat of being evicted by his landlord at any point of time. The eviction -petitioners claimed that that they had no other reasonably suitable commercial accommodation anywhere else in Delhi and needed the suit premises bonafidely for themselves and the dependent members of their families. In reply, the present petitioner/tenant denied the eviction -petitioners' ownership of or their status as landlords apropos the suit premises. He contended that he was a tenant of Shri Amarnath s/o Late Sh. Jeewan Dass since 1977 and had paid rent @ Rs.46/ - per month against receipts. That an earlier attempt by Sh. Amarnath and his family to dispossess the respondent was injuncted by a decree dated 29.11.1999 in suit no. 1077 of 1993. Another petition seeking his eviction under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act was dismissed on 27.11.1996. Subsequently, Smt. Kaushlaya Devi w/o Shri Amarnath sought his eviction under Section 14(1)(a), (f) (g) and (j) of the Act. This petition too was dismissed on 9.10.2003. Despite that, the petitioner continued to pay rent to Smt. Kaushlaya Devi by Money Orders up to 31.10.2010 and after her death to her LRs till 31.10.2011. The ownership of the tenanted premises by the eviction -petitioner was denied. It was contended by the tenant that mere grant of Letters of Administration do not confer ownership rights apropos the estate of the deceased. It was then contended that since the first petitioner was still in employment and earning a handsome salary and enjoying perks too; therefore he had no need for additional premises. Additionally, it was contended that the eviction -petitioners owned shop No. K -33 in the same locality, as well as two other shops in Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Therefore, their claim for bona fide need was a falsity. Finally, it was argued that the respondent (present -petitioner) was 85 years old and had been earning his livelihood/running his business from the tenanted premises since the inception of the tenancy but, now his four sons were looking after the business.
(3.) AFTER considering the pleadings and arguments, the Trial Court found that the respondent had sought leave to contest essentially on the following three grounds: (i) that the eviction petitioners were neither the owners not landlords of the premises, thus, there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between them and the Will through which they claimed title was a document of fraud; (ii) there was no bonafide need of the premises and (iii) in any case, they had suitable alternate accommodation.;