Yogesh Khanna DECISION
Yogesh Khanna, J.
1. This petition challenges the order dated 06.09.2017 passed in eviction petition E-545/2017 under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereafter 'DRC Act') whereby the leave to defend application was dismissed and eviction was allowed.
2. The respondents have filed an eviction petition E-545/2017 in respect of the shop admeasuring 7' x 14' situated at ground floor in house No. 37/3052, Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 of Main Hardhyan Singh Road (hereafter 'tenanted shop'). The said shop is required by respondent no. 1 for his professional purposes viz. he being a lawyer, has been practicing since 2005 and has no suitable accommodation in Delhi to be used as his office for practicing as a lawyer. The grounds for his bonafide need are mentioned in para 18(a)(ii) of the petition as under:-
"The premises is required for bonafide use of self by petitioner No. 1 as his Legal office since he is a practicing lawyer since 2005 and has no other reasonable and suitable accommodation in Delhi. Petitioner No. 1 has retired from the services of Govt. of India as Executive Director in the year 2005. I and thereafter he enrolled himself as an Advocate with Bar Council of Delhi in August, 2005 vide enrolment No. D-792/2005. He became member of Delhi High Court Bar Association in 2005 with Membership No. 8908/2005 and also became member of Supreme Court Bar Association in 2005 with membership No. S-1213/2005 He also became member of Saket Bar Association in 2010 with Membership No. 1084/2010. After getting enrolled as an Advocate he is doing practice in the Courts and he has bonafide requirement of an proper office to be used for this purpose. He has no other suitable premises for such office and without proper office, he is constrained to operate from the Bar room/Library in the court premises which in no way is suitable and graceful for his profession. So the premises in question is required for the bonafide use as an office for his professional work. Further it is worth mentioning here that the said premises is located on the main road in the area where the petitioners, including Petitioner No. 1, have been brought up from their childhood and are well known in the area in their social community. So operating from the said premises in question would be more suitable, more convenient for himself and his clients who are generally from the weaker section of the society who live in the neighborhood and adjoining areas and the petitioners too belongs to weaker sections of the society."
3. In his leave to defend application the petitioner has alleged (a) the petitioner had paid an amount of Rs. 5,25,000 at the time of construction and hence the petitioner is an owner of the super structure being constructed on property No. 37/3052, Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005; (b) the respondent no. 1 though alleges he requires the premises for running his office but has concealed the fact he is an ordinary resident of property 37/3052 (supra) per Govt. records i.e., electoral role and his ID card of Bar Council of Delhi shows his official address to be the same and also other records shows he is living in the premises 37/3052 (supra) and hence his need is for additional accommodation thus the leave to defend ought to have been granted; and (c) the respondent no. 1 has other alternative accommodation viz. his office at 40, Railway Enclave, San Martin Marg, Chanakya Puri, New Delhi-110021; 16/1310, Padam Singh Road, Bapa Nagar, Opposite Shiv Mandir, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 and another office at A-509, Som Dutt Chambers-1, 5, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi.
4. I have perused the documents on record as also the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court has duly considered that property No. 37/3052 (supra) i........