We herein set out the facts, in brief, to appreciate the issue involved in this appeal.
E 167/2011.
Ram Piari, therefore, became the owner and landlord of the suit shop on their death as their adopted son by inheritance.
Felt aggrieved by the said order, the appellants filed revision before the High Court.
These were essentially the grounds on which the appellants sought leave to companytest the application on merits.
1548/V, Nai Sarak, Delhi 110 006 hereinafter referred to as the suit shop .
Ram Piari.
Respondent No.1 sought eviction on the ground of his bona fide need to start a business in the suit shop.
The appellants also denied the bona fide need set up by respondent No.1 companytending, inter alia, that alternative suitable accommodation in the building in question is available to respondent No.1 on other floors and hence the plea of bona fide need is number genuine.
76 of 2013 whereby the High Court dismissed the revision filed by the appellants herein against the judgment dated 13.08.2012 of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi by which the leave to companytest the application filed by the appellants tenant has been dismissed and the eviction petition under Section 14 1 e of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 hereinafter referred to as the Act filed by respondent No.1 was decreed.
Ram Piari, filed an application under Section 14 1 e of Act seeking appellants eviction from the suit shop being Case No.
Miri Mal died in 1974 leaving behind his widow Smt.
Since the issue relating to the ownership of respondent No.1 over the suit shop, on the strength of adoption deed surfaced for the first time in these proceedings, the appellants in his leave to companytest the application denied the ownership of respondent No.1 over the suit shop so also the relationship of landlord and tenant between them.
Ram Prakash died in 1989 leaving behind his son appellant herein .
Ram Piari, who became the owner landlady of the suit shop by inheritance.
The appellants then filed rejoinder and reiterated their grounds already taken in the application for leave to companytest.
After the death of Miri Lal, Ram Piari started companylecting rent from Ram Prakash.
In order to prove his ownership over the suit shop, respondent No.1 filed some documents which included one adoption deed dated 14.03.1978 alleged to have been executed by Smt.
Miri Mal let out the suit shop to one Ram Prakash in 1944 on monthly rent of Ek Ana.
Challenging the order of the High Court, the appellants have filed this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.
Almost after 17 years of the death of Smt.
Ram Piari, on 28.07.2011, Respondent No.1 herein claiming to be the adopted son of Miri Mal and Smt.
Respondent No.1 denied the averments made by the appellants in the application for leave to companytest.
Heard Mr. Nikunj Dayal, learned companynsel for the appellants and Mr. S. Gurukrishna Kumar, learned senior companynsel for respondent No.1.
By impugned judgment dated 04.08.2014, the High Court dismissed the revision.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Leave granted.
Ram Piari died issueless in 1994.
This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 04.08.2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in RCR No.
It was his submission that keeping in view the grounds raised by the appellants in the application, especially, three grounds, namely, first, relating to ownership of respondent No.1 over the suit shop, second, the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between them and, third, the availability of alternative suitable accommodation in the same building for accomplishing the need, prima facie, a case is made out to companytest the respondent No,1s application for eviction on merits.Respondent No.1 sought eviction, inter alia, on the ground that he is the adopted son of Miri Mal and Smt.
The appellants, on receipt of the summons of the application, filed an application with an affidavit under Section 25B 4 of the Act by raising grounds therein and sought leave to companytest the application filed by respondent No.1 for eviction.
By order dated 13.08.2012, the Additional Rent Controller dismissed the application filed by the appellants for leave to companytest and passed an eviction order against the appellants from the suit shop.
One Miri Mal was the owner of the shop situated on the ground floor of property bearing No.
Learned companynsel for the appellants tenant while assailing the legality and companyrectness of the impugned order companytended that the Rent Controlling Authority and the High Court erred in dismissing the appellants application for leave to companytest the eviction application filed by respondent No.1.
