MADHU JAIN Vs. SHASHI RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Present revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner, tenant, assailing the eviction order dtd. 8/6/2022 passed by the Rent Controller, KKD Courts (Shahdara) Delhi, in respect of shop no. 2, forming part of the property no. 213, Karkardooma Village, Delhi-92 ('tenanted premises'), whereby the Rent Controller has dismissed the Tenant's leave to defend. Submissions of the petitioner

(2.) Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the finding of the Rent Controller that the Respondent, landlady, has a bona fide requirement for the tenanted premises is incorrect. He states that the averments of the Respondent is that the tenanted premises are required for earning personal income due to her imminent retirement and that she intends to open tutorial classes to teach children, including poor children and to support her children financially as well. He states that the assertion of the Respondent that she wishes to teach poor children contradicts her assertions that she requires a tenanted premises for running tutorial classes for earning income. He further states that there is no evidence on record that the Respondent is in fact providing financial assistance to her son, Nishant Dagar. He states that the Respondent has not placed on record any document evidencing that her younger son is financially dependent upon her. On the contrary, it is evident from the record that the Respondent's younger son is financially independent.

(3.) In reply, learned counsel for the Respondent states that this matter was first listed on 24/11/2022, and the matter was heard at length and thereafter, the Petitioner had stated that he does not wish to press the revision petition on merits and only seeks extension of time for vacating the tenanted premises. She states that the matter is listed today for the limited purpose of determining the extended period sought by the Petitioner and recording of the undertaking of the Petitioner. The order dtd. 24/11/2022 reads as under: