SADHANA GUPTA Vs. VIJAY PAL KATHURIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') impugns the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller dated 28.8.2014 by which the Additional Rent Controller has dismissed the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner/tenant and has decreed the bonafide necessity eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act with respect to the tenanted premises being one shop in property no.78, Baldev Park, Delhi-51 as shown in yellow colour in the site plan annexed along with the eviction petition.

(2.) The case as set up by the respondent/landlord was that there were a total of three shops on the ground floor and in one shop his wife is already carrying on the business of ladies garments under the name and style of M/s. Famina. The respondent/landlord has two unemployed sons and he needed the suit premises as well as the adjacent shop which is with the other tenants for carrying on of businesses by his sons. Against the other cotenants, namely Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma and Sh. Rakesh Sharma, another eviction petition for bonafide necesstiy was filed. The present eviction petition was filed for the need of the younger son Sh. Ajay Kathuria who wanted to open his independent business of sale and purchase of mobile and computer related devices.

(3.) In a petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, there are three aspects which are required to be seen. First is whether there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the landlord is the owner of the tenanted premises. Second aspect to be seen is that the tenanted premises are required bonafidely by the landlord and/or his family members. The third aspect to be seen is that whether the landlord has any other alternative suitable premises.