LAXMI DEVI Vs. BABULAL VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner (petitioner in the eviction petition) has assailed the order dated 3rd August, 2012 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller (Central), Delhi, in eviction petition, being E -122/2011, whereby the application for leave to defend filed by the respondent/tenant was allowed as the learned trial court found that the respondent had been able to raise triable issue in view of the grounds raised in the application for leave to defend, by filing of the present civil revision petition under Section 25 -B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as Act).

(2.) THE grounds on which the eviction of the respondent was sought by the petitioner are that she required the premises for her own use as she desired to open a grocery store to earn her livelihood. In order to set up the said grocery store, she would be helped by her sons. The petitioner did not have any other alternate space available to run the store except the premises bearing address 3752, Kucha Parmanand, New Delhi. The petitioner had no permanent outlet to carry on business to earn decent income and maintain herself with dignity. The petitioner at present is maintaining herself from Rs.4,200/ - approximately that she gets as pension after the unfortunate demise of her husband. The petitioner had a divorced daughter who predeceased the petitioner and left behind a son named Mayank Verma, who has been supported by the petitioner. Mayank, who is 19 years old is being financially supported and maintained by the petitioner pursuant to the death of the daughter of the petitioner till date. His education expenses, daily needs are being provided to him by the petitioner. Further, since the petitioner is 80 years old, she has her medical expenses. The petitioner in spite of being from a reputed family is living in a piteous condition, much against the economic and social status that was enjoyed by her during the lifetime of her husband. The petitioner has no other source of income to maintain herself and the son of her predeceased daughter.

(3.) THE petitioner is neither the owner nor landlady of the suit property. The respondent/deponent has come to know that the said property was sold by Sh.Mahavir Parshad, Sh. Pardeep Badal and Sh.Kuldeep Sagar in 1995 and this fact was never disclosed by the petitioner. No notice of attornment was sent to the deponent.