Dolly Chandra & Anr v. Rameshwar Prasad

P.K. BHASIN,J RCR No. L7L/2O1.1 1? 16* IN THE HIGI{ COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC.REV. l7ll20r0 DOLLY CHANDRA & ANR Through: None versus ..... Petitioners ./' ' t RAMESHWAR PRASAD ""' Respondent Through: Mr. G.P. Thareja, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. BHASIN ORDER

23.09.20t1 This disposed of revision petition has been placed before the Court pursuant to the Registry's note pointing out that the revision petition no. nrentioned in the order dated 8tl'September,20ll, whereby the revision petition was allowed, was mentioned as RCR number I7Il20l1 while in fact the correct number of the petition is RCR I7ll20I0. It appears that due to some clerical mistake wrong RCR number has been mentioned on the first page of the order dated 8tr'September,2011. The suulle, therefore, requires to be corrected. It is accordingly ordered that the RCR No. l7ll20l1 mentioned in the order dated 8th Septemb er,2011 shall stand substituted by RCR No. 17112010. Necessary endorsement to this effect can be made in the original order also. .\ ) I -r) SEPTEMBER 23, 2Olllpg

g o + IN TTIE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RCR NO. 17112011 Date of Decision: $r1-September, 20ll DOLLY CHANDRA & ANR. ...Petitioners 'fhrough: Mr'. G.P. Thareja, Advocate Vcrsus RAMESFIWAR PRASAD ...Respondent Through: Mr. Rarneshwar Prasad & Mr. K.K. Jha, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to sec the judgrnent? tro To bc referred to the lleporter or not? no Whether the judgmcnt should be reported in the digest?aRs {, + 1. ) 3. ouDliR P.K tsHASIN.J: This is a revision petition filed under Section 25-B (8) read with Section 115 of CPC by the petitioners-tenants for setling aside the order clated 19.04.2010 of the Adclitional Rent Controller rvhereby their application for grant of leave to delbnd the eviction petition in respect of the first floor portion of prerrises 7/841-A, Govindpuri, Kalkaji, Neu, Delhi under ilreir tenancy filed against thcm by their landlord (respondent herein) has been dismissed and eviction ordcr has been passed. RCR No. 1;/U20I1 Page 1 of8 Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. lo ,i { 2. The facts that have led to the filing of the present petition are that eviction petition was filed by the respondent seeking eviction of the petitioner no. 2, a proprietorship concern of petitioner no. 1, from the premises under their tenancy comprising of one halt of the size of 40'x1 6%", and one room of the size of 10'x9', lobby, veranadah, bathroorn and latrine on the ground that he required the same bona fide for his two sons, who were dependent upon him, and wanted to start their business. The respondent-landlord had claimed in the eviction petition that his elder son was earlier canying on the business of export of garments in the name and style of \zVs Ratna Krishna Exports but that business was ciosed due to some disputes between the parlners and so he wanted to start his own business. The respondent had further pleaded that his'second son had a Degree in Fashion Technology frorn International Institute of Fashion Technology (IIF'I), New Delhi and though he was working as a Quality Inspector in a Govr:rnment recognized Export House in Olrhla but he also intended to starl his own business (after leaving the job) and since both his sons had no other place to star.t their business the premises with the petitioners were required by him. 3. The petitioners filed an application with an affidavit of petitioner no. 1 before the trial Court seeking leave to contest the eviction petition but the learned trial Court declined to grant the leave and, as noticed =a RCR No. L7I/2OL1. tt a already, eviction of the petitioners fiom the premises under their tenancy has been ordered and feeling aggrieved by the order of the trial Court the t petitioners have invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 4. The principal ground urged before this Court by Shri G.P.Thareja, learned counsel fcrr the petitioners for gctling reversal of the irnpugned order of the trial Court was that the respondent-landlord's requirement of the premises under their tenancy on the fir:st floor is not at all bona fide and that was evident from the fact that he had not long before the filing of the eviction petition let out the ground floor of the maiu property to one Shri Ramesh Kutnar Pehalwan. Counsel contended that if at all the respondent was in need of the premises in question for tris sons he would have placed the ground fl<lor accommodation, which was almost the same as on the first floor, at their disposal tbr starting their intended business though there was actually no likelihood of that. 5. Rejecting the aforesaid plea of the petitioners that the respondent had recently let out the ground floor to another tenant and that showcd that his requirement of the premises in question \,vas not bona fide the trial Court observed in the irnpugned as under:- 10. The respondent has n