Mohd. Yaseen vs Diwan Singh Tokas
2014 Latest Caselaw 6438 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                  RC.REV.No.391/2014

%                                                     3rd December, 2014


MOHD. YASEEN                                                ......Petitioner
                          Through:       Mr. S. Bhatnagar, Advocate.



                          VERSUS

DIWAN SINGH TOKAS                                            ...... Respondent

Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

C.M. No.19861/2014 (condonation of delay)

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.

+ 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