ANAND PRAKASH Vs. RAM MURTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/tenant has assailed an order dated 03.03.2010 whereby the Additional Rent Controller, dismissed his leave to defend application filed in reply to the eviction petition preferred by the respondent/landlady under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), in respect of a shop situated on the ground floor of property bearing No. B-8, Shopping Centre II, Vivek Vihar, Delhi, and simultaneously passed an eviction order in favour of the respondent/landlady, with a condition that the same shall not be executed for a period of six months from the date of passing of the order.

(2.) In the eviction petition, the respondent/landlady has claimed that she is the owner of the tenanted premises situated on the ground floor and that she and her husband live on the floor above. While the respondent/landlady is aged 67 years, her husband is 71 years old. It is averred that she is suffering from a number of ailments and is unable to take care of herself and her husband has undergone a heart surgery. It is further stated that the respondent/landlady and her husband have no male issue to look after them and their three daughters are married and well settled in their marital homes. The respondent/landlady states that she needs the constant presence of her husband to look after her and to provide her medical assistance in case of need. The husband of the respondent/landlady conducts his business from a tenanted premises situated in Naya Bazar, Delhi. It is stated that as Vivek Vihar, i.e., the place of residence of the respondent/landlady is far from Naya Bazar, her husband is unable to conduct his business from such a long distance on account of having to attend to the medical contingencies of his wife and as a result, his business suffers on account of his absence. Thus the respondent/landlady has sought the eviction of the petitioner/tenant from the tenanted shop situated on the ground floor of her residential premises, to enable her husband to shift there and conduct his business therefrom.

(3.) Summons were issued in the eviction petition under the Third Schedule whereafter, the leave to defend application was filed by the petitioner. In the leave to defend application, the petitioner/tenant stated that the respondent/landlady has filed the eviction petition only to harass him and that earlier also she had filed a petition against him under Section 14(1)(k) of the Act, which was dismissed. There are also certain FIRs stated to have been lodged by both the parties against each other in respect of which, proceedings are pending in the concerned courts. The petitioner/tenant further averred in his leave to defend application that the husband of the respondent/landlady is settled in his business of selling rice and other commodities in a tenanted premises situated in Naya Bazar and that the tenanted shop at Vivek Vihar is not required by the respondent/landlady for bonafide purposes. The petitioner/tenant further submitted that the husband of the respondent/landlady is hale and hearty and regularly attending to his business at Naya Bazar and that the respondent/landlady has three shops in the suit premises, including the tenanted premises, which are let out by her and that sufficient accommodation is available to her on the upper floor of the suit premises.