M/S. GEETA PRESS Vs. MS. MADHU RASTOGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Issue notice. Notice is accepted on behalf of the respondent. At joint request of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for disposal.

(2.) The learned Rent Controllers order dtd. 8/1/2021 apropos eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the rented premises, is impugned on the ground that it has erred in law.

(3.) The leave to defend had raised various contentions. Primarily they are as follows: (i) it is not proven that the son was financially dependent RC.REV. 90/2021 Page 2 of 12 upon his mother the landlady, (ii) there were suitable alternate spaces available to her, in which her son could be accommodated, (iii) the tenanted premises could not be used for the activities proposed by the son under the Municipal Laws, (iv) the property above the tenanted premises was available to the landlady, where the son could be accommodated v) the eviction petition is replete with the errors and concealment, vi) the first floor of the building in which the tenanted premises are located is vacant and it could well have been made available to the petitioners son, for his purported new business of publication the eviction was sought, vii) that the landlady and her husband are also owners of the newly incorporated company, which is engaged in the business of desktop publishing the tenant alludes thereby that the son could join the parents in the same business. According to the petitioner, these were triable issues and the application should have been allowed.