GITA GUPTA Vs. KAILASH CHAND DHINGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this revision petition filed under proviso to sub-section (8) of section 25(B) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), petitioner/tenant has challenged the order dated 12th September, 2012 passed by the ld.ARC, East Delhi District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi whereby the leave to defend application filed by her in the eviction petition, has been rejected.

(2.) An eviction petition under section 14(1)(e) read with section 25(B) of the Act was filed by the respondent herein i.e. owner wherein it is alleged that respondent is the owner/landlord of property no.E-4/17, Krishna Nagar and the petitioner herein i.e. respondent before the ld.ARC is his tenant in respect of shop no.2 in the aforesaid property. It was alleged that the shop was let out for running a clinic to the petitioner but the same remained locked most of the time. It was further alleged that in the past 10-11 years the shop in question was opened only for four-five times. Neither the petitioner nor any person is sitting in the tenanted premises. A site plan was annexed with the eviction petition. It was alleged that petitioner is also irregular in making payment of rent. Respondent/landlord/owner had averred that he is about 68 years of age and retired from a Punjab Government Undertaking and his wife is about 67 years of age who has retired as a senior teacher from Shishu Bharti School. It was averred that his elder son, aged about 42 years is working as a Lecturer in Agra. The wife of his son is also working as a Lecturer in Agra. His grandson aged about 6 years is a student of 2 nd class. The younger son of the respondent/landlord is about 35 years of age and is working in a private firm. The wife of his younger son is a graduate. It was alleged that his younger son and son's wife are residing with respondent and his wife. They all are in occupation of common kitchen, common drawing room, common dining room, one bed room for the respondent, one bed room for the elder son, one pooja room and one bath room and toilet, one store room above the kitchen has been converted into a bed room to accommodate the younger son, the younger son shares the drawing room, toilet, bath room, kitchen and pooja room with the respondent. He had averred that his elder son and his wife working in Agra with their son usually come on almost all vacations, holidays, week ends, festivals etc to meet respondent and other family members. It was further alleged that petitioner/tenant is in possession of tenanted premises for the last 41 years. It was further averred that petitioner/tenant own big house in Naveen Shahdara, one big hospital and a nursing home in Naveen Shahdara, one shop being run as a chemist shop by the son of the petitioner and one more shop in Chhota Bazar, Shahdara, Delhi-32 is lying locked. The son and daughter-in-law of the petitioner are also running a play school in Naveen Shahdara and one big property has been given on rent by the petitioner to M/s Reliance Fresh Department Store in Naveen Shahdara, Delhi-32. Respondent had alleged that he has no source of regular income of his own and he wanted to start a stationery and Photostat shop in the tenanted premises. His daughter-in-law also wanted to start a coaching/study centre with the help of his wife and needed some space but due to scarcity of space, they are unable to do so. His younger son was also in need of space for garage as his car was being parked on the road side. Respondent/landlord also required guest room for his relatives and also wanted to provide separate drawing room, kitchen, bath room to his younger son so that his sons could live their life peacefully and without any disturbance to each other. It was further averred that petitioner/tenant is not running clinic in the tenanted premises. The respondent has averred that shop let out to petitioner/tenant is required bonafide for himself and his family members and he has no other reasonable and suitable accommodation.

(3.) Petitioner/tenant on being served, in the form specified in Third Schedule, filed an application for leave to defend under section 25-B(5) of the Act and her affidavit wherein it was alleged that respondent is not the owner of the premises in question and is only a landlord of petitioner for collecting the rent. It was averred that due to high rise in the prices of the property, the present eviction petition is filed so that premises can be re-let out on higher rate. It was further averred that both respondent and his wife are 70 years of age and his wife is not in physical and mental fitness condition to carry out any coaching or teaching classes, as such a frivolous petition has been filed.