Yogesh Khanna DECISION
Yogesh Khanna, J.
1. This petition challenges the order dated 18.09.2015 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller-02, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred as the learned 'Trial Court') in Eviction Petition No. 1107/2014 under Section 14(1)(e) and 25(B) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereafter referred as the 'DRC Act') whereby an application for leave to defend was dismissed and an eviction order was passed in favour of the respondent.
2. The respondent has filed an eviction petition in respect of a shop situated at ground floor in house No. 5580, Shardhanand Marg, (earlier known as Garstin Bastion Road), Lahori Gate, Delhi - 110006 (hereafter 'tenanted shop'). The rent of said shop is Rs. 300/- per month beside other utility charges. The petitioners are carrying on the business of rice trading. The shop premises was originally let out to one Raghunath Dass Goel, father of the petitioners herein for commercial purposes and after his demise, the petitioners became the tenant in this shop.
3. It is the case of the respondent he had purchased property No. 5580 (supra) from Prem Shanker Aggarwal, on his behalf as well as on behalf of his father Shri Banarsi Dass vide a sale deed dated 14.10.2009 which clearly mentions one shop at Ground Floor bearing No. 5580 along with latrine, total area admeasuring 29.75 square meter, without roof/terrace right, adjacent to property No. 5579 with a common staircase on Southern side. This property initially belong to Mst. Suraiya Begum, the erstwhile owner/landlord with two adjacent properties Nos. 5579 and 5581 (supra). She had sold the entire property No. 5580 through a registered sale deed, including the tenanted shop to one Mr. Banarsi Dass and Mr. Prem Shanker Aggarwal. Then, Mr. Prem Shanker Aggarwal sold this property, including the tenanted shop to the respondent herein vide registered sale deed dated 14.10.2009 registered on 15.10.2009. Accordingly, the petitioners became the tenants of the respondent by operation of law.
4. Since the petitioners were habitual defaulter in payment of rent and despite requests, did not pay the rent, hence a legal notice dated 12.08.2013 was served upon the petitioners which they vaguely replied vide reply dated 16.08.2013 and then moved applications before the learned Court for Deposit of Rent (DR) Petition No. 247/2013 and then DR No. 21/2014 and deposited the rental there. The petitioner No. 1 also filed a Civil Suit No. 147/2013 for injunction which was also disposed of on the statement made by the respondent.
5. It is alleged by the petitioners Mst. Suraiya Begum, the erstwhile original owner/landlord of the properties No. 5579 and 5581 along with 5580 (supra) had issued the rent receipts on 15.09.2011 even after the sale deed dated 11.07.2001 of property No. 5580 was executed in favour of Mr. Prem Shanker Aggarwal, wherein the tenanted premises was mentioned as a shop in property No. 5581 (supra), hence there is a defect in ownership and in location of the tenanted shop.
6. Learned Trial Court had dismissed the application for leave to defend vide an impugned order dated 18.09.2015 which is now subject to challenge here.
7. The argument of the learned senior counsel for the appellants is four folds-a) the respondent also has another property viz 2729-31, at Gali Pattewali, Naya Bazar, Delhi-110006, just nearby where the respondent from its ground floor is running his transport business. There are upper floors in the said shop which are lying vacant and the respondent can shift there; b) there is no bonafide necessity for the respondent as though he allegedly require this shop for expansion of his business yet have let out the adjoining shop during the pendency of this evictio........