PRADEEP KUMAR TYAGI Vs. BIMLA TYAGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT rent revision petition has been filed under section 25B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred as "ACT") assailing the judgment/order dated 23.01.2012 passed by Ld. Additional Rent Controller (ARC) in eviction petition bearing No. E-230/2011, whereby the application filed by the petitioner seeking leave to defend, was dismissed.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the respondent being the owner of a shop measuring 8x8 on the ground floor of property bearing no.32 , Sarojini Park, Shastri Nagar, New Delhi-110034 (hereinafter referred as ,,tenanted premises) filed an eviction petition dated 09.12.2010 on the ground of bonafide commercial requirement. Respondent stated that father of petitioners was inducted as tenant in the tenanted premises for commercial purposes and after the death of the father of petitioners on 01.11.2007, both the petitioners had became joint tenants therein @ Rs 2000/-month. It was stated in the petition that the tenanted premises was required by the respondent and her husband for running a ,,Kirana' shop, since due to the separation of their son, Praveen Tyagi, they are facing financial problems. Therefore, they are in need of the shop to earn livelihood for herself and her husband. The tenanted premises was stated to be most convenient for them as the same is within the property where she resides and is situated on the main road and adjoins the main gate of the property. Respondent has no other shop or place from where she can settle her business of ,,Kirana' shop. Hence, the tenanted premises is stated to be required for meeting her bonafide commercial needs, as she does not have any other reasonably suitable commercial property.

(3.) THE order of granting eviction decree to the respondent has been challenged in the present proceedings by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that Ld. ARC has committed grave illegality by not considering the material on record as the respondent herself has stated in eviction petition that expect the shop in question, the entire property is in her exclusive possession. It was also challenged on the ground that the need of respondent was not bonafide as respondent is receiving rents from other tenants in the suit property. It was assailed on the ground that respondent and her husband are getting pension. Hence, tenanted premises was alleged to be not required for bonafide commercial requirement as the eviction petition had been filed in order to let out the tenanted premises at a higher rent.