1 herein.
2656, Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi in short the suit premises .
Being aggrieved by the decree in favour of the appellant herein, Respondent No.
1 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHA SUNDRIYAL Date 2018.04.19 172644 IST Reason herein under Section 47 read with Order XXI Rule 26 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in short the Code were rejected.
2 herein preferred Rent Control Revision being No.
Aggrieved by the order dated 08.06.2012, Respondent No.
Meanwhile, Respondent No.
2 herein and his father Late Shri Ishwar Chand Jain terminating the tenancy with effect from 31.05.2009.
Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 05.12.2013, the appellant has preferred this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.
1 herein against the judgment and order dated 08.06.2012 passed by the Additional Rent Controller in Ex Petition No.
The Additional Rent Controller, vide judgment and order dated 08.06.2012, rejected the objection petition filed by Respondent No.
2 herein preferred Review Petition being No.
Since the tenant failed to vacate the suit premises, the appellant herein filed Eviction Petition bearing No.
The tenants started a family business under the name and style of M s Rakesh Wool Store.
51 of 2012 wherein the objections filed by the Respondent No.
Brief facts Suresh Kumar Kohli the appellant herein is the owner of shop bearing No.
Shri Ishwar Chand Jain died on 08.03.2010.
Learned single Judge of the High Court, vide judgment and order dated 05.12.2013, allowed the petition filed by the Respondent No.
The Additional Rent Controller, New Delhi, vide judgment and order dated 30.11.2011, decreed the eviction petition in favour of the appellant herein.
E 304/2010 under Section 14 1 e read with Section 25 B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 hereinafter referred to as the Act on the ground of bona fide need.
1 herein was inducted as a partner in the family business on 02.04.1979.
880 of 2012 before the High Court.
2 herein.
Learned single Judge of the High Court, vide judgment and order dated 08.05.2012, dismissed the revision.
1 herein, and Ramesh Chand Jain Respondent No.
1 herein preferred CM Main No.
In support of this finding, reliance was placed by the High Court on a judgment of this Court in Mohd.
On 15.11.1975, his father, along with one another, let out the suit premises on a monthly rental of Rs.
212 of 2012 before the High Court.
Aggrieved by the above order, Respondent No.
Learned single Judge of the High Court, vide judgment and order dated 17.08.2012, dismissed the review petition filed by Respondent No.
1 herein.
On 25.04.2009, the owner sent a legal numberice to Respondent No.
450/ to Late Shri Ishwar Chand Jain, father of Respondent No.
Shri Rakesh Jain Respondent No.
1 herein filed objections in Execution Petition No.
51/2012 under Section 47 Order XXI Rule 26 1 before the Additional Rent Controller, New Delhi claiming that he being a necessary party as he inherited rights in a joint family business and he was number aware of the pendency of the eviction proceedings.
383 of 2012 before the High Court.
K. Agrawal, J. Leave granted.
2 herein.
The present appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 05.12.2013 passed by the High Court of Delhi in CM M No.
880 of 2012 whereby learned single Judge of the High Court allowed the petition filed by the Respondent No.
