Delhi High Court Avinash Sharma vs V K Kathuria on 14 March, 2017 $~A54 * % Date of Decision: 14.03.2017 + RC.REV. 121/2017 AVINASH SHARMA ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Deepak Bashta, Adv. versus V K KATHURIA ..... Respondent Through Mr.Satya Priya Kamrah and Mr.Sachin Mittal, Advs. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J. (Oral) Caveat 236/2017 Since the learned counsel for the respondent has entered appearance, the caveat stands discharged. CM No.10071/2017 (exemption) Allowed subject to all just exceptions. RC.REV. 121/2017 & CM No.10070/2017(stay) 1. By the present Revision Petition filed under section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the DRC Act) the petitioner seeks to impugn order dated 28.7.2016 by which order the application filed by the petitioner seeking leave to defend was dismissed and an eviction order was passed. The respondent/landlord has filed the present eviction petition for eviction of property No. A11/85, Sector18, Second RC.REV.121/2017 Page 1 Floor, MIG Flat, Rohini, Delhi110085 for the bona fide requirement of himself and his family. It is alleged that earlier the family of the respondent was residing in their own house at Noida and the family was joint family. On account of temperamental differences it was not possible for the whole family to stay together. The house at Noida was sold off by the wife of the respondent who was the owner. The family shifted to a flat in Vikas Puri. The elder son and his family are staying in a rented accommodation in Lajpat Nagar paying a monthly rent of Rs.4,000/ per month. The wife of the respondent had applied the entire consideration received from the sale of the house at Noida to purchase flat No.108A. DDA Flats, GGI Block, Vikas Puri, New Delhi which is a flat having two bedroom, one drawing cum dining room, kitchen, toilet etc. The respondent and his wife need one bed room. The petitioner has a younger son who needs another bed room though he is presently studying and staying in the hostel but often visits and stays in the flat of the family. Sometime guests also visit the house of the respondent and the accommodation is insufficient. Hence, the elder son Shri Yogesh and his family cannot reside in the premises. It was further stated that the respondent was working in a PSU and was to retire on 30.4.2014. The respondent had earlier also filed an eviction petition. However, the same was withdrawn on 25.01.2012 with liberty to file the present petition. 2. The ARC by the impugned order on the issue of landlordtenant relationship noted that the same is not disputed by the petitioner. It also noted that the petitioner challenges the bona fide need of the respondent pleading that the respondent has accommodation of a 150 sq.yards plot having 14 rooms in Noida and that the present petition is mala fide. It noted the contention of the respondent that the said property has been sold and RC.REV.121/2017 Page 2 entire consideration has been used to purchase the flat at Vikas Puri. Hence, the said plea of the petitioner was rejected by the ARC. The ARC also noted the contention of the petitioner i.e. that the respondent and his elder son are having differences with the family but rejected the same. The order also notes that the petitioner has denied that the son is staying in Lajpat Nagar and has claimed that the rent receipt regarding the Lajpat Nagar house is forged. It noted that the respondent has placed on record the ITR Return of the elder son which is of Lajpat Nagar. Hence, the said contention of the petitioner was rejected. Noting that the accommodation is not sufficient for the family in Vikaspuri the application for leave to defend was dismissed and the eviction petition was allowed. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that in the earlier eviction petition, the petitioner was granted leave to defend by the ARC on account of his defence that the respondent‟s wife owns a property in Noida which is built on 150 sq.yards. He submits that the respondent has only for the purpose of making a ground for bona fide eviction has deliberately now sold off that property. He also submits that the sale of the property is a story and all that has been placed on record is a transfer memorandum issued by New Okhla Industrial Development Authority which cannot be construed to be a sale as no registered document has been placed on record. Henc