KANTA KHOSLA Vs. SUBHASH CHANDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IMPUGNED judgment is dated 08.9.2011; eviction petition filed by the landlord had been decreed; the application seeking leave to defend filed by the tenant had been declined.

(2.) RECORD shows that the present eviction petition has been filed by the landlord Subhash Chander Kumar seeking eviction of his tenant from shop bearing No.3 forming a part of property No.A-12, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi; premises had been let out for a commercial purpose; rate of rent was Rs. 175/- per month exclusive of electricity charges; contention of the landlord was that he was the owner/landlord of the aforenoted premises; the respondent was a habitual defaulter; she had last paid rent only on 01.3.2006; petitioner has a small family comprising of himself; his wife and one daughter; petitioner has been doing business from shop nos.1 & 2, under the name and style of 'Kumar Hardware' located in the same property. Shop No.3 is the tenanted premises. Daughter of the petitioner Dr. Nidhi Kumar aged 28 years is a qualified physiotherapist from the 'Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine and Allied Sciences' affiliated with the Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University', Delhi. She had obtained a degree in 2005 in first division. She had got married in the year 2005 but because of differences with her husband she underwent a divorce which was a divorce by mutual consent on 02.12.2010. Since 24.5.2009 she is living with the petitioner; his daughter wishes to start a new chapter in her life. The shop is required for her need as she wants to open a clinic of physiotherapy. The shop is in a suitable and viable area and the clinic can be run from the aforenoted premises. Documents of the medical degree obtained by the daughter of the petitioner as also the divorce petition substantiating the submission that his daughter is now living with her parents have also been filed on record. This is the bonafide need which has been pleaded by the landlord.

(3.) AN oral submission has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner which is to the effect that the decree of divorce shows that a sum of Rs. 22 lacs has been paid by her husband as alimony to the wife and as such this would sufficient for her lifetime need; this argument is wholly bereft of merit. Apart from the fact that this divorce decree states Rs. 22 lacs has been paid to the wife as permanent alimony and for maintenance of the child; even otherwise the argument that a sum of Rs. 22 lacs would be sufficient for a lifetime for two persons is ridiculous; the daughter is not prevented from pursuing a profession in which she is dully qualified, such an argument can in no manner be sustained.