BAL KRISHAN KHANNA Vs. RAVI KANTA MADHOK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner (respondent before the court below) is aggrieved by an order dated 5.12.2009 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller dismissing an application filed by him seeking leave to contest the eviction petition filed by respondent/landlady(petitioner before the trial court), in respect of a shop bearing No. 1, situated on Ground Floor of property No. 11/4, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi.

(2.) The facts relevant to decide the petition are that the respondent/landlady filed an eviction petition in respect of the aforesaid tenanted premises stating inter alia that she needs the same bonafide for her use, as also for the use of her family members which consists of herself, her son, his wife, a grandson and a married granddaughter. It is averred in the petition that the respondent/landlady, who is aged 80 years and suffering from a number of ailments, is residing on the first floor of the suit premises, consisting of two bed rooms, a dinning-cum-drawing room, a toilet, bathroom, kitchen and open space along with her aforesaid dependants. It is further averred that the son of the respondent/landlady is an LIC agent and requires the shop in question and other space on the ground floor, for running his office and that the grandson of the respondent/landlady is 21 years of age and requires some space to set up his own business. The daughter-in-law of the respondent/landlady also requires some space for commercial use as she wants to run her own business. As per the respondent/landlord, she is finding living on the first floor highly inconvenient and that the same is causing acute hardship to her. She has stated that the shop in question and the other space on the ground floor is required for her own bonafide use and for her dependants. It is further stated that as and when the married granddaughter of the respondent/landlady and her husband visit her maternal home, she is unable to stay there because of paucity of accommodation.

(3.) Summons were issued to the petitioner/tenant in the aforesaid petition, in reply to which an application for leave to defend was filed. The petitioner/tenant stated that the shop in question was let out to him on rent by the father-in-law of the respondent/landlady 40 years ago and ever since, he had been running his business therefrom. It was averred that there was sufficient space available on the ground floor of the suit premises with the respondent/landlady and her family and that they did not require the tenanted premises which is commercial in nature and cannot be put to use for residential purposes and that the son of the respondent/landlady has an office on the first floor of the suit premises which he had been using for the past several yeas. Thus it was stated that there was no change in the circumstances which necessitated any further accommodation for his business purpose.