The main legal point established is that an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) must disclose a cause of action and the petitioner's contentions must raise triable issues or facts that would disentitle the respondent from an eviction order.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

1. Petitioner impugns orders dated 01.04.2016 as also order dated 25.01.2017. By order dated 01.04.2016, the leave to defend application of the petitioner has been dismissed and an eviction order passed. By order dated 25.01.2017, review petition filed by the petitioner seeking review of order dated 01.04.2016 has also dismissed.

2. Respondent has filed the subject eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act) seeking eviction of the petitioner from portion of property bearing No.2763 Qutub Road, Sadar Bazar, Delhi more particularly, as shown red in colour in the Site Plan annexed to the eviction petition.

3. Respondent filed the subject eviction petition contending that the tenancy was originally created with the partner of the firm M/s. Chet Ram Sanjay Kumar by late Sh. Tara Chand, who was the absolute owner thereof. Sh. Tara Chand expired in the year 1991 and left the property to his only son, the eviction petitioner (respondent) herein.

4. It is contended that the petitioners were inducted as tenant in the year 1975 by late Sh. Tara Chand and shop admeasuring 7x13 feet on the ground floor was let out at a monthly rent of Rs.100/-.

5. It is contended that in 1989, rent receipts were duly issued to the petitioner and thereafter petitioner has paid rent at the rate of Rs. Rs.100/- per month till 2009 by way of cheques and after 2009, rent was enhanced by Rs.50/- and petitioner has cleared the rent up till October, 2015 by issuing the cheque of Rs.1800/-.

6. It is contended that the respondent is in bona fide need of the property for which the tenancy was created as the need of the respondent is growing with the growth of his family members. The respondent further stated that he has three sons, who were then aged 40, 38 and 36 respectively. The eldest son was constrained to work in a private firm because of lack of space and other amenities whereas the other two sons were working with the respondent.

7. It was further stated that the family business of the respondent was not enough to sustain the growing need of the family of the respondent. It is in these circumstances; subject eviction petition was filed.

8. Petitioner filed its leave to defend application, which was refused to the petitioner by order dated 01.04.2016 impugned herein.

9. Petitioner thereafter approached this Court by filing RC. Rev. 448/2016 which was disposed of by order dated 20.09.2016.

10. The order of this Court dated 20.09.2016 notes that three contentions were raised by the petitioner in his leave to defend application, (i) that the petitioner had attain the status of permanent tenant inasmuch as pursuant to the dissolution deed, he has carried out construction of walls and other steps have been taken, (ii) that the respondent was in occupation of the entire larger shop whereas the petitioner has only one third share of the shop as a tenant and being a case of additional accommodation, it required evidence to be led and (iii) that the eviction petition was mala fide because the respondent has commenced business in competition with the business of the petitioner and intention was to oust petitioner from the tenanted premises.

11. Noticing that the above three contentions of the petitioner had not been dealt with by the Rent Controller, the Court by its order dated 20.09.2016 permitted the petitioner to withdraw the petition and file a review petition before the Rent Controller.

12. The Rent Controller by order dated 25.01.2017 has rejected the review petition filed by the petitioner.

13. During submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has not restricted his grounds to the ones earlier raised but has raised the five following pleas. (i) First of all, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petition has been filed by the respondent in an incorrect name and the petition has been filed in the trade name of the petitioner and not in the name o