ACCEBEEN STEEL PVT LTD Vs. JAI SHREE KHANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred U/S 25-B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act (DRC Act) r/w S. 115 CPC against the order dated 21.03.2012 passed by Learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller wherein, the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner in eviction petition E-32/2009 was dismissed.

(2.) THE eviction petition was filed by the respondent in respect of property bearing No. 19 Nizamuddin East, New Delhi. The suit property was let out by predecessor in interest of respondent to the petitioner vide lease deed dated 01.05.1973. The demised property was let out at the monthly rent of Rs.2450/- for residential purposes. In the eviction petition, it was submitted by the respondent that she lives with her husband and son in Mumbai in a tenanted flat. Respondent's husband is the Director of M/s Paramount Dyes and Chemicals Private Ltd. with its offices at Delhi and Gurgaon whereas the respondent is proprietor of M/s Tribaels India which is a firm dealing in carpets. It was the respondent's case that she and her husband visit Delhi 5-6 times a year and have no place to stay in Delhi and hence require the demised property for herself as well as for her family members who are dependent upon her for residence. The respondent also averred that the first floor of the suit property was occupied by her brother Mr. Anil Verman and hence the first floor was not available to meet the requirement of their family. It is also submitted that the respondent has no other alternative accommodation in Delhi and thus sought the eviction of the petitioner from the suit property on the ground of bona fide requirement.

(3.) IT has been further urged by the petitioner that the copies of air tickets placed on record by the respondent pertained to the period after the filing of leave to defend application and show that respondent has not visited Delhi at any time prior to the filing of eviction petition. It has been submitted that most of the visits to Delhi of the husband of the respondent were during and around the period when the Commonwealth Games were under way and were for the said specified purpose and does not support the contention of the respondent that she and her husband are frequent flyers to Delhi and hence need the suit property for their residential purposes.