Manmohan Singh, J.:--

1. Mr. Sudershan Kumar, landlord/owner filed two eviction petitions under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for bonafide requirement, against his two tenants, namely, Mr. Suresh Kumar Gupta and Mr. Harish Chand Garg.

2. The said eviction petitions were filed by him with respect to Shop No. 1 and Shop No. 2, situated on the ground floor of the suit property bearing No. 29/5, Shakti Nagar, Delhi-110007. He purchased suit property on 27th July, 2006. He thereafter approached this Court challenging the vires of sub-Section (6) of Section 14 of the Act in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8975/2008, inter-alia, submitting that the embargo of five years imposed by the said sub-Section upon a purchaser prohibiting him from instituting an eviction petition on the ground of bonafide requirement was unconstitutional. The said petition was dismissed on 17th December, 2008. Thereafter he terminated the tenancy of the tenants and filed the eviction-petitions against them.

3. The number of the eviction petition filed against Mr. Suresh Kumar Gupta is E-77/12, and against Mr. Harish Chand Garg is E-115/11. The grounds of eviction in both the eviction petitions are the same.

4. The leave to defend applications filed by both the tenants, namely, Mr. Suresh Kumar Gupta (Shop No. 1) and Mr. Harish Chand Garg (Shop No. 2) are almost on the same grounds. However, both the matters were dealt by the different Additional Rent Controllers.

5. By an order dated 15th December, 2012, the application for leave to defend filed by Mr. Harish Chand Garg in Eviction Petition No. 115/11 was allowed by the Addl. Rent Controller (North), Delhi. The said order has been challenged by the landlord Dr. Sudershan Kumar by filing of the petition being RC. Rev. No. 109/2013, under Section 25-B(8) of the Act before this Court against his tenant Mr. Harish Chand Garg.

6. However, the leave to defend application in the Eviction Petition No. 77/12 was dismissed by the impugned order dated 12th February, 2013 passed by the Additional Rent Controller (North), Delhi despite of having knowledge about the granting of leave to defend in the matter of adjoining shop. The said order is challenged by the tenant of Shop No. 1, i.e. Mr. Suresh Kumar Gupta, is the subject matter of petition being RC. Rev. No. 113/2013 under Section 25-B(9) of the Act.

7. Both the matters were listed before this Court from time to time. Almost similar submissions were addressed by the parties, as the numbers of grounds mentioned in the application for leave to defend were similar, thus, common order is being passed by disposing of both the petitions.

RC.Rev. No. 109/2013 filed by Mr. Sudershan Kumar, Landlord

8. The petitioner by way of the present petition under Section 25B(8) of the Act assailed the order dated 15th December, 2012 passed by Addl. Rent Controller, North, Delhi whereby respondent/tenant’s application for leave to defend was allowed in the eviction petition being No. 115/2011 filed by the petitioner

9. Brief facts are that the petitioner filed an eviction petition against the respondent on the ground of bonafide requirement under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act in respect of shop No. 2, on the ground floor of the suit property which was let out by the previous owner to the respondent.

10. The petitioner, who is a dentist by profession, has his own dental surgery clinic at shop bearing No. 2, on the ground floor, situated at Municipal Market Mandelia Road, Kamla Nagar, Delhi. It was stated in the eviction petition that the petitioner required the tenanted shop for establishing a full-fledged 24-hour Dental Hospital with all ultramodern facilities. It was stated that the vacant portion in suit property purchased by the petitioner of which the tenanted shop No. 2 is a part, is not sufficient enough to execute the desired plan.

11. Petitioner stated himself to be highly qualified dentist, having worked as Sr. Con

Click Here to Read the rest of this document