SURJEET SINGH Vs. URMILA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER impugned is the order dated 16.12.2010; the application filed by the tenant seeking leave to defend had been dismissed; the eviction petition filed by the landlord had been decreed.

(2.) RECORD shows that the present eviction petition has been filed by the landlady Urmila Devi seeking eviction of her tenant Surjeet Singh from a shop in part of property No. 24/52-B Tilak Nagar, New Delhi; the tenant was paying a monthly rent of Rs. 140/- excluding electricity and water charges; contention of the petitioner is that she is the owner of the aforenoted suit premises having purchased them in the year 1966; premises had been let out for non-residential purpose; the tenant is carrying on his business under the name and style of 'M/s Lovely Tracer' from the said premises; the petitioner has no other reasonably suitable accommodation; her contention is that her late husband Krishan Lal had started the work of picture framing on a very small scale to earn income to support his family; the said work was started under the canopy on the ground floor; income from the framing work was not sufficient; as such the aforenoted shop was given on rent to the present petitioner; the second shop was also given on rent to other tenant Mian Khan; this was only to supplement the income of the petitioner and her husband. With the passage of time, the work of the husband of the petitioner improved; her son Bhupesh also joined the business; the husband of the petitioner died in 1990; her son Bhupesh was married in 1990; his wife was well-versed with boutique work and she started a boutique on the ground floor; the business of Bhupesh which was of photo framing, selling, cutting, grinding, etching and painting over glass increased over a period of time; more and more workers were required and added by Bhupesh; the boutique work of her daughter in law had also increased; she was doing tailoring work with a number of sewing machines; 16-18 workers were engaged in the boutique and glass work; the only portion available to the petitioner is four rooms as depicted 'A', 'B', 'C' & 'D' in the site plan marked 'X'; contention is that room 'A' is being used for grinding and etching work; rooms 'B' & 'C' are being used for boutique work and room 'D' is being used to keep a generator as there are frequent electricity faults and a generator is thus required; further contention being that there is no proper office/showroom or reception to attend to and to deal with the customers which is embarrassing both to the customers as also the persons dealing with them; at present the customers are being attended to at the canopy which is clumsy and in bad shape; present shop is thus required by the petitioner to enable her son Bhupesh as also her daughter in law to carry out their business works from an accommodation which clearly falls short; eviction petition was accordingly filed.

(3.) NO triable issue has arisen on this count.