Dr. S.N. Gupta Vs. Satnam Singh.
In the High Court of Delhi.
RC.REV. 102/2016 & CM No.5355/2016 (stay)
Judgment By :- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
Judgment On: – 04th June, 2017
Facts Brief: –
The respondent/landlord filed the present eviction petition against the petitioner/tenant under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC regarding shop. The petitioner is said to be tenant in possession of two shops which were let out to the father of the petitioner Sh. Tulsi Ram Gupta 40 years ago by the father of the respondent, namely, Sh.Pritiam Singh for running oil mill business. The father of the respondent died leaving a will where the half of the property in terms of shops have been divided between two brothers. The ARC passed the order of eviction and present revision petition is filed under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the DRC Act) seeking to impugn the eviction order passed by the Additional Rent Controller (hereinafter referred to as the ARC) dismissing the application seeking leave to defend by the petitioner.
Petitioner’s Argument: – The defendant had alternate accommodation. Also the petition for eviction is mischievous and the respondent does not have proof of his resignation
Respondent Argument: – It was contended that the respondent needs the tenanted shop to start a business for himself and for his son so that the respondent can earn some money and fulfill the daily needs of the family. And he being the sole bread earner but because of his poor health he resigned from his job as it was not possible for him to commute long distance daily.
Court’s Decision: – Court observed that it is for the landlord to decide how to use a property and live so there are no reasons to differ with the impugned order. The present petition is without merit and the same is dismissed
(This is prepared by Mansi Chhaya, Newworld school of Law)