VIDYAWATI Vs. GAUTAM MAHAJAN & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present petition filed under Section 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 ('DRC Act', for short), the petitioner, who is the owner/landlady of the Ground Floor of property bearing No.16/1667 Abdul Rehman Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi ('subject premises', for short) impugns order dated 15.05.2018 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, Pilot Court, CCJ-cum-ARC (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in case bearing No.E-795/17 titled Smt. Vidyawati vs. Shri Gautam Mahajan & Ors. By order dated 15.05.2018 the learned ARC has been pleased to allow the respondents' application under section 25B (8) of the DRC Act and has thereby granted to the respondents leave-to-defend the eviction petition filed by the petitioner. Petitioner's contentions :

(2.) A conspectus of the case as argued by Mr. Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is the following:

(3.) It may be mentioned that only some of the tenants in the subject premises filed leave-to-defend applications while others did not. The principal ground for claiming leave to defend the eviction petition was that since the petitioner's daughters were married and living with their respective husbands in their own respective homes, the daughters were not 'dependent' on the petitioner; and that therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to invoke the provisions of section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act to seek eviction for the bona fide ((THELAW)) requirements of her daughters. It was further contended in the leave-to-defend application that the plea of bona fide ((THELAW)) requirement was also false, since going by their own allegations, Smt. Hemant Yadav had obtained her B.Ed. degree some 39 years back and Smt. Neena Yadav had obtained her Master's Degree in Sociology about 32 years ago; and the plea that they were proposing to open a coaching centre and a consultancy business respectively after all these years was ex-facie unbelievable and false. It was further contended that Smt. Hemant Yadav was running a gas agency alongwith her husband and that the couple owned other properties as well. It was also alleged that Smt. Neena Yadav was a Director in various companies. It was contended that Smt. Neena Yadav had the first floor of property No. D-226A Sarvodaya Enclave, New Delhi comprising 5-6 rooms and another property in Sarvodaya Enclave comprising 4-5 rooms owned by her husband, available for her use. It was further contended that, in any case, the petitioner has suitable, alternate accommodation available to her since one big shop on the ground floor and four rooms on the first floor of the subject premises are lying vacant; and further that the petitioner is also the owner in exclusive possession of property bearing No.1000 Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, which is a commercial premises with 15-16 rooms. All these premises were stated to be available for the requirements of the daughters.