SURAJ BAJAJ Vs. SWADESH KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS rent control revision petition is filed under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRC Act') impugning the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dated 31.7.2012 by which the ARC has dismissed the leave to defend application and has decreed the bona fide necessity eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act with respect to one room i.e. garage in the ground floor of the property bearing No. 4/29, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi as shown in red colour in the site plan annexed with the eviction petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner very vehemently argued before this Court that in the entire impugned judgment, the ARC only deals with the residential requirement of the respondent/landlord and not with the issue as to whether the respondent/landlord has the need of the garage to park the car, and therefore it is urged that the impugned judgment be set aside and the matter be remanded for a fresh decision before the ARC as to whether the respondent/landlord needs the subject room/garage for parking the car.

(2.) FIRSTLY , I must note that though partially the Counsel for the petitioner is correct in arguing that the impugned judgment does not adequately discuss the need of the respondent/landlord for the said tenanted room/garage for the requirement of parking of a car of his son, but at internal pages 2 to 5 of the impugned judgment, there is a reference as averred in the eviction petition for the requirement of the tenanted room/garage for parking of a car by/of the son of the respondent/landlord being Wagon -R car bearing registration No. DL -2CA -C2302, and which garage is required because the car is unnecessarily being parked on the road. Not only the ARC has made a passing reference to this aspect in the impugned judgment, even in para 18(a) of the eviction petition the details with respect to requirement of the tenanted room/garage is mentioned for the purpose of parking of a Wagon -R car for/by the son of the respondent/landlord.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner therefore sought to argue that the respondent/landlord has alternative suitable accommodation on the first floor, however, this issue obviously could not be very seriously pressed once the need was not for the respondent/landlord or his family, but for the purpose of parking of a car, and surely a car could not be parked on the first floor.