RAJEEV KAUSHIK Vs. AGYAWATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT eviction petition had been filed under Section 14(1)(e) and 14(D) of the Delhi Rent Control Act; this was by Agyawati; her contention was that the premises had been let out by her deceased husband to the tenant Rajeev Kaushik. The premises have been described as Municipal No.30/39-B, Gali No.8, Kunti Marg, Vishwas Nagar; eviction petition states that the premises are residential but the tenant is using the same for godown which premises remained largely closed. Need of the landlord has been described in para 18 wherein it has been stated that after the death of her husband the landlord is living in the great hardship; presently she is on the second floor but because of serious ailment suffered by her including stone in the gall bladder, swollen legs she is unable to climb the stairs and as such the ground floor premises are required bonafide for the purpose of her residence. Her contention is that she has three sons; one son is residing separately; premises are thus required bonafide in order that she can set up her residence on the ground floor and the present accommodation where she is living is on the second floor is almost inaccessible to her.

(2.) APPLICATION for leave to defend had been filed. Landlord-tenant relationships is not in dispute. It is stated that the premises had been let out at a monthly rent of Rs.1250/-; at the time of creation of tenancy a security amount of Rs.1,00,000/- had also been paid; this is by and large only contention raised and urged before this Court. There is also nothing else which is contained in the body of the application seeking leave to defend which in any manner can be said to have raised a triable issue. It merely states that the grounds for eviction stated by the petitioner cannot be believed and a bald submission has been made that the grounds of eviction made out by the petitioner cannot be believed and a viable defence has been made out by the defendant but what is that viable defence has not been detailed.

(3.) THE aforenoted ingredients have clearly been fulfilled in this case. This is clear from the averments made in the eviction petition. In fact Section 14(D) is a summary procedure which has been engrafted for a special class of landlord as one aforenoted in this case. THE object of this Section is to assist a vulnerable and needy section of the society to recover possession of premises as expeditiously as possible and without usual trial and tribulation.