KAMLA DEVI Vs. DHARMANAND PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,1958(hereinafter called ,,the Act) has been filed by the petitioner-tenant against the order dated 03-12-2010 passed by the Additional Rent Controller whereby her application for leave to contest the eviction petition filed against her by her landlord, who died during the pendency of the eviction petition, under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act to have the possession of one shop in property bearing no. B-1C-164, Chander Lok, Main Mandoli Road, Delhi-110093(hereinafter to be referred as the ,,tenanted shop) on the ground that he required the same bona fide for his residence and that of his dependant family members has been dismissed and she has been ordered to vacate the tenanted shop.

(2.) THE deceased-landlord claimed in his eviction petition that he was earlier the owner of property bearing no. B-1C-164, Chander Lok, Main Mandoli Road, Delhi-93, of which the tenanted shop was a part, but in the year 2002 some part of this property was gifted by him to his deceased sisters daughter and her son. THEreafter the petitioner along with his family consisting of his wife, two sons and two unmarried daughters were residing in the back portion of the tenanted shop. However, the said portion of the building was an old one and it had collapsed and thereafter, the petitioner and his family members, having no other accommodation, had taken shelter in the gifted portion of his sisters daughter Smt. Bhagwati Joshi. THE petitioner is a physically disabled person and senior citizen and was not having good health and so had no occupation also to earn his livelihood and, therefore, he required the tenanted shop as well as another shop also let out to another tenant for the residence of his family members and for some occupation. It was further pleaded in the eviction petition that the tenanted shop was in dilapidated condition and required immediate repairs and re-construction. On these averments, the eviction petition was filed by the deceased-landlord.

(3.) THE learned Additional Rent Controller rejected the tenants application vide impugned order in which the various pleas of the tenant were dealt with and rejected in the following paras of the impugned order:-