SATISH JAIN & ORS Vs. TARO DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the outset, counsel Mr. Ravi Dahiya, Advocte who appears for the petitioners sought adjournment on the ground that the arguing counsel Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate is not available. A reference to the memo of parties filed in the present petition shows that there is not one but two Advocates namely Sh. Amit Jain and Sh. Ashok Jain for the petitioners. Non-availability of only one counsel is therefore not a good ground for adjournment especially because adjournment is very vehemently opposed on behalf of the respondent as petitioners enjoy the benefit of an interim order dated 12.12.2012 staying eviction. I also note that at the end of the petition the two advocates who are shown in the memo of parties are different ie whereas in the memo of parties Advocates Mr. Amit Jain and Mr. Ashok Jain are shown but in the end of the petition the Advocates who are shown to have filed the petition on behalf of the petitioners and who have signed the petition are Sh. Amit Jain and Sh. Rajender Gupta. Since petitioners/tenants are enjoying the benefit of an interim order staying operation of the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.8.2012 which ordered eviction of the petitioners/tenants and on account of the opposition of the respondent to any adjournment, this Court has refused to adjourn the case in the facts of the present case when more than one advocates are representing the petitioners. The present counsel for the petitioners has, after adjournment was refused, argued the case.

(2.) This rent control revision petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) is filed by the petitioners/tenants impugning the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller dismissing the leave to defend application and decreeing the bonafide necessity eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. The eviction petition was filed seeking eviction of the petitioners/tenants from one shop on the ground floor admeasuring 7.6ft.X12.6 ft. situated in the property bearing no. 2951/41, Beadonpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi on the ground that the tenanted premises are required by the widowed daughterin- law of the respondent/landlady namely Smt. Tanuja wife of Sh. Naresh (deceased son of the respondent/landlady), for opening of a beauty parlour. The family of the respondent/landlady comprises of three sons namely Sh. Nand Kishore, Sh. Krishan, Sh. Naresh and two daughters. As stated above, Sh. Naresh has expired leaving behind his widow Smt. Tanuja and one son. The son Sh. Naresh expired at a young age on 1.3.2003. In the property on the ground floor there are four shops of which two shops are in Gali No. 41 and two shops are in Gali No. 42. The suit shop is in Gali No. 41. Out of the four shops one shop has been sold way back in the year 2004. One shop in Gali No. 41 is being used by the daughter-in-law of the respondent/landlady Smt. Durga as a tea and coffee shop. The fourth shop and which is a third shop inasmuch as the fourth shop is sold, is in tenancy with the tenant Sh. Pritpal Singh and his father Sh. Inderjeet Singh. The portions above the ground floor i.e the first floor, second floor and third floor are used in the following manner as stated in the impugned judgment.

(3.) Petitioners/tenants contested the eviction petition by filing the leave to defend application. Before me, the following grounds are urged for setting aside of the impugned judgment:-