LAWS(DLH)-2011-10-52

PHOOLA RANI Vs. RAMESHWAR SHARMA

Decided On October 03, 2011
PHOOLA RANI Appellant
V/S
RAMESHWAR SHARMA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act?) has been filed by the petitioner-tenant questioning the correctness of the order dated 18.03.2010 passed by the Additional Rent Controller whereby her application for leave to contest the eviction petition filed by her landlord, respondent herein, under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act has been dismissed and she has been directed to hand over the possession of property bearing no. X-21, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi(hereinafter referred to as the tenanted shop?) to the respondent-landlord.

(2.) THE tenanted shop was let out to the deceased father of the petitioner in the year 1957 by the erstwhile owner thereof from whom the respondent-landlord claims to have purchased it in the year 1992. THE respondent-landlord had pleaded in para 18(a) of the eviction petition, which was filed on 2nd June, 2009, about his requirement of the tenanted shop and the relevant averments are as under:- 1 THE petitioner is owner of shop No. X-21, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110018 ...Petitioner bona fide requires the tenanted shop of respondent for his grandsons namely Abhishek and Ritesh for business purposes. THE petitioner has no other reasonable alternative commercial accommodation for his grandsons for carrying on the business. On account of non-availability of the commercial accommodation grandson Abhishek was forced to join private Job/service. Mr. Ritesh has also appeared in his final year exams of B.A. and thereafter he is interested in running his own business like his grandfather and other family members.

(3.) THE learned Additional Rent Controller in his impugned order dealt with the various pleas raised by the petitioner-tenant in her leave application and rejected each one of them. THE relevant portion from the impugned order, dealing with the pleas which alone were pressed into service before this Court, are re-produced below:- 7. It has been argued on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner has himself alleged in the eviction petition that he has three properties in Delhi other then the shop in question, but the said contention is baseless because no where in the entire eviction petition petitioner has stated that he has three other properties apart from the shop in question. Rather he has categorically stated that he is owner of only two shops i.e. shop no. X-21 and X-93 whereas the shop no. X-95 belongs to his wife Smt. Malti Sharma and shop no. X-17 belongs to his son Parvesh Sharma. It is contended on behalf of respondent that petitioner has falsely stated his son Parvesh Sharma to be owner of shop no. X-17 whereas he himself is owner of this shop as well shop no. 95. But this is only a bald assertion of the respondent without any material to substantiate the same it is settled law that bald allegations without any material on record to substantiate the same could not be looked into as mere bald allegations are not enough for the grant of leave to defend. Similarly the averment of the respondent is without any material to substantiate the same, whereas the petitioner has filed documentary proof regarding ownership of his son over shop no. X-17 and his wife over shop no. 95. He has filed copy of Conveyance Deed dated 30.11.04 in favour of his wife Malti Sharma with respect to shop no. X-95, West Patel Nagar and copy of registered Sale Deed dated 22.10.1985 in favour of his son Parvesh Sharma with respect to shop no. X-17, West Patel Nagar. Thus, the allegations of the respondent regarding petitioner?s ownership over these two shops gets falsified.