ANIL KUMAR VERMA Vs. SHIV RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Separate statement of the petitioner has been recorded. On the last date, his counsel had appeared in the Court and had made a statement that he is not pressing the petition on its merits; he had only sought extension of time for vacation of the suit premises. Today a statement has been made by the petitioner which has been affirmed by his counsel that the petition should be dismissed on merits in order that the petitioner can challenge this order before a higher Court; he does not want any time for vacation of the property. This statement was recorded in the Court today to the following effect.

(2.) Record shows that the present eviction petition has been filed by the landlords (six in number) against the tenant; contention is that they are the owners of the suit premises; the tenant is an old tenant; these premises is a shop i.e. shop No. 2895 in premises No.2893-99, Chehlpuri, Kinari Bazar, Delhi; monthly rent is Rs. 45/-; the petitioners have inherited this property from Sham Sher Singh who had executed a registered Will dated 07.08.1976 in favour of his wife and two sons; the petitioners being the legal representatives of deceased Sham Sher Singh have filed the present eviction petition. It is contended that the premises are required bonafide by them for commercial use; petitioner No. 1 Shiv Rani is aged 75 years and is fully dependent upon her children i.e. petitioners No. 2 to 6; she is a house wife and has no source of income. Petitioner No.2 (Rajender Kumar) is her elder son and is married; his son is also married. Petitioner No. 3 has two married daughters and one married son Sidharth who is presently unemployed; he has experience in business; he needs the aforenoted shop to carry on his business. Petitioner No. 3 is the widow of predeceased son; she has also got experience of boutique business as also of running a beauty parlour and she also requires the aforenoted suit premises to carry on commercial trade; petitioners No. 4 to 6 are the unmarried children of deceased Vijay Kumar; they are also not doing anything because of lack of space; they also require aforenoted shop. In fact the requirement of the present petitioners is of at least six shops of which four are tenanted out to four persons; present eviction is qua one shop. These are the grounds which have been pleaded in the eviction petition.

(3.) Leave to defend has been filed; the averments made in the said application have been perused. Contention is that the Will of Sham Sher Singh does not disclose as to which property has been bequeathed to whom; in fact there are no document of title of deceased or of Sham Sher Singh which would enable them to bequeath this property; ownership had been denied on this count. It is however admitted that petitioner No. 1 has been collecting rent from the respondent; contention is that this rent was being paid to petitioner No. 1 under impression of the tenant that she was the owner/landlady but there is no such relationship between the parties as the petitioners are not the owners. The second submission that petitioner No. 6 is working with Ozone Pvt. Ltd. Health Club, Safdargang Enclave; petitioner No. 4 is employed with M/s Home Appliance, Noida; petitioner No. 5 Sidharth (son of petitioner No. 2) who is also knonw as Gopal is running a shop under the name and style of M/s Uttam Collections in Kinari Bazar; petitioner No. 3 Veena is a house-wife and the premises are not required for her; petitioner No. 2 Rajender Kumar is a drug edict; petition has been filed malafide. Further contention is that on 01.12.2008, the landlady had sold shop No. 2898; if the need of the petitioners is not bonafide, had it been bonafide she would not have sold this shop; present eviction petition has been filed only to extract a higher rate of rent.