ASHOK MITTAL Vs. SUDESH MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Section 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 challenging the order dated 27th September 2014 passed by learned ACJ/ARC/CCJ (West) in Eviction Petition No. 62/2012 titled Smt. Sudesh Mehta versus Sh. Ahok Mittal.

(2.) The learned ACJ/ARC/CCJ vide judgment dated 27th September 2014 was pleased to dismiss the application moved by the petitioner for grant of leave to defend and passed an eviction order under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act regarding the tenanted premises i.e. one covered hall of about 33'.6" X 47'.0" and open space measuring approximate 91'.0'' X 25'.0" in property bearing Municipal No. 650/I-A, situated at 14, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi.

(3.) The case of the respondent/landlady set out in the eviction petition was that the premises were required by the respondent/ landlady for use and occupation for running a commercial establishment. The respondent/landlady was blessed with five daughters out of whom one had expired and was unmarried. The other four daughters of the respondent/landlady are married and are residing in their respective matrimonial homes. The respondent/landlady has further stated that in order to augment her income the respondent/landlady is desirous of starting a business with her eldest daughter Shabnam Mehra as there is a lucrative offer for dealership of a tractor company by the name of Preet Tractors Limited which company is having its office at Nabha in Punjab. The respondent/landlady has further stated that in order to run the business a minimum of 350 sq. yards of the commercial place is required and the portion under the tenancy of the respondent is about 400 sq. yards and hence the premises would be ideal for running the aforesaid business. The respondent/landlady has further stated that the grandson of the respondent namely Mr. Saurabh Mehra, son of her eldest daughter Smt. Shabnam Mehra is a qualified engineer in industrial production and is presently doing a job in Dubai. The grandson of the petitioner is also desirous of coming back to India and join the business. Lastly, the respondent has mentioned that similar accommodation in the vicinity would cost the respondent/landlady to pay a rent of somewhere in the range of Rs.1,15,000/- per month which she cannot afford to pay.