GOPAL DASS GOGIA Vs. SHASHI PRABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 25 -B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') impugns an eviction order dated29.3.2012 passed in Eviction Case No.E -233/11. The respondent's application under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act seeking eviction of the tenant from the tenanted premises, being one shop on the ground floor of property No.D -62, Kirti Nagar, Delhi, was allowed while the petitioner/tenant's application under Section 25 -B(4) of the Act seeking leave to defend was dismissed.

(2.) THE eviction -petitioner is an NRI settled in Kuwait. She wants to settle in India with her family and also to avail medical treatment for cancer which is stated to be was very expensive in Kuwait. The suit property comprises of ground and first floors with a room on the second floor. Her family includes her husband and two sons, namely Rajni Chhatwal and Ravi Chhatwal. For the purpose of her settlement and treatment in India, she had already got the ground floor of the aforesaid property vacated from the erstwhile tenant Shri Ashwani Talwar. Her elder son Shri Rajni Chhatwal is running business of sale of soap detergent called "Saffa ", from the room on the second floor, which is also being used as godown and office. The property is otherwise fully built up. The elder son Rajni Chhatwal is unable to expand his business due to constraint of appropriate accommodation. He wishes to open a showroom, office and godown in the suit premises which, according to them, is appropriate place for his business. The eviction -petitioner has disclosed that all the three shops on the ground floor of the suit property were occupied by tenants and eviction had been sought of all three shops because there was a bona fide requirement for the entire accommodation. It was claimed that no customer can have access to the second floor; hence the second floor property was not suitable for the son's business. He was dependent upon his mother, the eviction -petitioner, for accommodation. There was no other property in Delhi owned by either of them to suit their need for commercial accommodation. It was further stated that the business was not remunerative because of the insufficiency of the accommodation and the property was bona fidely required by the petitioner and her family. It was further submitted that the other son of the petitioner, namely Shri Ravi Chhatwal who was settled in Dubai, wanted to come to India and serve his mother. He also wants to set up the business of dry -cleaning since he had a running dry -cleaning business and had requisite expertise to set up the proposed business in India and that he also requires a place to set up his business; that neither the eviction -petitioner nor the said second son have any other requisite/suitable accommodation in Delhi.

(3.) IN reply to the application for leave to defend, it was submitted on behalf of the eviction -petitioner/landlady that the treatment for cancer at Max Hospital was not disputed by the tenant; and the latter could not restrain or dictate to her to curtail her desire to settle in India; that it is the eviction -petitioner's prerogative to provide accommodation to her son to expand his business; that the other properties alleged to have been owned by the landlady were not of commercial nature, hence, they would be of no relevance or consequence because the requirement was of commercial accommodation. The eviction -petitioner submitted that the application for leave to defend failed to disclose any triable issue, hence it ought to be dismissed.