Mohd. Yaseen v. Diwan Singh Tokas

1. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 13 days in filing the petition is condoned. C.M. stands disposed of. C.M. No.19860/2014 (exemption)

2. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. C.M. stands disposed of. 2014:DHC:6683 + RC. REV. No.391/2014

3. This rent control revision petition is filed under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) impugning the judgment of the Rent Controller dated 21.2.2014 by which the 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 room/shop at ground floor no.241, property no.211-D/1, M/s S.K. Steel Works, Munirka Village, New Delhi.

4. At the outset, it is relevant to mention that the impugned judgment has already been executed and the respondent/landlord has taken possession of the suit/tenanted premises in execution of the impugned judgment dated 21.2.2014.

5. The only argument urged by the counsel for the petitioner/tenant is that the petitioner/tenant is a very poor person and therefore he needs the premises. In my opinion, this argument is not an argument in the eyes of law once the respondent/landlord has been found to require the tenanted shop for the bonafide necessity for carrying on the business by his two sons, one of whom is unemployed. I may also note that petitioner though disputed that respondent is not the landlord/owner, however, it is an admitted fact appearing on record that petitioner herein has been paying rent to the respondent right since the year 1999.

6. Dismissed.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J DECEMBER 03, 2014 Ne