Valmiki J Mehta, J.@mdashNo one appears for the respondents. No one appeared for the respondents even on 8.7.2014 and therefore they were proceeded ex parte on that date. The present petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') impugns the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 15.5.2013 by which the respondents/tenants have been granted leave to defend. Leave to defend has been granted by making the following observations in para 4 of the impugned order and in which it is stated that two shops on the main road in property bearing No. H-193-B, Dilshad Garden, Delhi would be an alternative suitable accommodation as also one shop in property bearing No. 194A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi:
"4. In the respective leave to defend applications, the applicant-respondent No. 1 has averred that he ceased to be a tenant 3-4 years back and since then vide an oral agreement, tenancy is continuously in the name of his son, who has been impleaded as respondent No. 2. Further the premises in question is stated to be a residential premises and not a commercial shop. Besides these grounds, certain other properties are also allegedly owned by the petitioner and the nature of these properties is residential, commercial, residential-cum-commercial. The defence grounds on these lines do appear in para 6 and para 7 of the respective affidavits in support of the leave applications. It is alleged that in property No. H-193-B, Dilshad Garden, Delhi, the petitioner is having two shops on the main road and that another shop is there in the property No. H-194-A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi, which is being used for running it as Titan-Timex (Watches) Shop, by the elder son of the petitioner.
These grounds are prima facie sufficient for the purpose of granting leave to the respondents to defend the present proceedings. Ordered accordingly.
The written statements be filed within 30 days positively; with an advance copy to the opposite party/Counsel against receipt. Be put up on 30.7.2013 for replication etc."
2. In my opinion, the Additional Rent Controller has committed a clear-cut illegality and perversity in passing the impugned order inasmuch as the respondent/tenant only made a self-serving statement in the affidavit supporting the leave to defend application that there were two shops of the petitioner/landlord in property bearing No. H-193B, Dilshad Garden, Delhi and which cannot be believed, because in the reply to leave to defend application with the supporting affidavit thereof it is specifically denied by the petitioner/landlord that there do not exist the alleged two shops which are stated to exist in property bearing No. H-193B, Dilshad Garden, Delhi. Therefore, a mere self-serving averment of the respondents/tenants cannot create existence of two shops belonging to the petitioner/landlord when really those shops do not exist or stand in the name of the petitioner/landlord. Such a defence of a tenant thus does not create a triable issue.
3. The second reason for grant of the leave to defend is that the elder son of the petitioner/landlord is allegedly carrying on the business of watches of Titan and Timex in a property being shop No. H-194A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi. In this regard, once again except the self-serving averment of the respondents/tenants there is nothing filed in support of the same and in fact, of such a plea, the petitioner/landlord has stated that neither the petitioner nor his son has anything to do with the shop bearing No. H-194A which is in fact a shop in which one Mohd. Akram is running an electronic repair shop in the name and style of M/s. The Time Clinic. Therefore, a mere self-serving averment that the son of the respondent/landlord is having a shop cannot help the respondent to allege existence of triable issue. In any case, the petitioner/landlord has asked for vacation from the suit/tenanted shop for business of both his sons, and therefore even if one son allegedly is carrying on the business of Titan and Timex (and which story in any case is not correct) yet there would be requirement for another son of the tenanted shop and accordingly to decree the bona fide necessity petition.
4. I may note that Counsel for the petitioner states that respondents are not even appearing before the Court of the Additional Rent Controller below after passing of the impugned order. In this view of the matter, the petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 15.5.2013 granting leave to defend is set aside/Eviction petition of the petitioner/landlord with respect to the tenanted shop on the ground floor of property bearing No. N-11/A-2, Dilshad Garden, Delhi as shown in red colour in the site plan annexed with the eviction petition is decreed. Respondents will be entitled to a statutory period of six months to vacate the suit premises.
