RAMESH CHAND BHARDWAJ Vs. KUSUM GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under Section 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (herein after referred to as the "Act") against the order dated 27.08.2011, whereby eviction order qua tenanted shop bearing private no. 3 measuring 13'x10' situated on ground floor of property bearing no. 3767, A-2, Kanhiya Nagar, Tri Nagar, Delhi (suit premises), was passed against the petitioner tenant.

(2.) The respondent landlord had preferred an eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Act for the bonafide requirement of the tenanted shop, stating that she is the owner and landlord of the suit premises and the tenanted shop was let out to the petitioner on 01.04.1994 for commercial purpose. It was submitted that there are three shops on the ground floor of the suit premises, including the tenanted shop, and two of which are occupied by her son Naveen, wherein he is running a small unit of making handkerchiefs. It was stated that there are two rooms each on the first and second floor of the suit premises. It was further stated that at the time of letting out the tenanted shop, her children were teenagers but, with the passage of time, her family had expanded and the accommodation available with her is not sufficient to meet the residential requirements of herself, her husband, and her two married sons. It was stated that they do not have any guest room for overnight stay of guests and married daughter Meena. It was further stated that the respondent wanted to shift to the tenanted shop on the ground floor, so that each of her sons could have an independent floor, and the drawing room on the first floor could be used as a guest room.

(3.) The petitioner/tenant was granted leave to defend vide order dated 18.4.2009. He filed his written statement wherein the ownership of the respondent over the suit premises was disputed. It was further averred that the tenanted shop was let out for commercial purpose and the eviction petition was filed on the ground of bonafide requirement for residential purpose and, hence not maintainable. The next contention raised by the petitioner/tenant was that the two shops on the ground floor, which are alleged to be in possession of the respondent's son, are lying vacant and her son is not running any small unit of handkerchief in the said shops, as projected in the eviction petition. It was further averred that the said two shops could easily be used by the respondent to meet her residential requirements and therefore, the eviction petition was liable to be dismissed. The respondent filed replication to the written statement of the petitioner, and reaffirmed the contents of the eviction petition and denied the submissions made by the petitioner/tenant.