Yash Pal Singh vs Sanjay Aggarwal

$~J-
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                            Pronounced on: 13.04.2018

+      RC.REV. 132/2016
       YASH PAL SINGH                                     ..... Petitioner
                    Through            Mr.Rajat Aneja & M.Shifa Nagar,
                                       Advocates for the petitioner.
                   Versus
       SANJAY AGGARWAL                                  ..... Respondent
                   Through             Mr.V.S.R.Krishna, Mr.V.S.Dubey &
                                       Mr.J.P.Tiwari, Advocates for the
                                       respondent

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH


JAYANT NATH, J.

1. This revision petition is filed by the petitioner/tenant under Section 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'DRC Act') seeking to impugn the eviction order dated 05.11.2015 passed by the court of Rent Controller.

2. The landlord/respondent let out the property i.e. a shop part of Khasra No. 642, Village Chandrawali, Shahdara, Delhi to the petitioner/tenant. The respondent filed an eviction petition under section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act. It was stated in the eviction petition that the premises was required by the respondent bona fide for his wife who is completely dependent on him for the purpose of her livelihood. It was pleaded that the respondent/his wife had no other reasonable or suitable commercial premises available except the said tenanted shop for carrying out her work.

3. The respondent/landlord had filed two eviction petitions seeking recovery of possession of two shops. The eviction petition raise identical facts and issues. The Addl. Rent Controller(ARC) had passed two separate eviction orders dated 05.11.2015.

4. In an identical petition being RC.REV. 131/2016 where the other eviction order dated 05.11.2015 was challenged, the court today has allowed the revision petition and set aside the eviction order. The facts and issues are common in this case. The two cases were heard together. For the same reasons as stated today in RC.REV. 131/2016, the present revision petition is also allowed and accordingly the impugned order dated 05.11.2015 is set aside. All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

JAYANT NATH, J.

APRIL 13, 2018/rb RC.REV. 132/2016 Page 2 of 2