MADAN MOHAN LUTHRA Vs. SANTOSH RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition impugns an eviction order dated 18th February, 2014, whereby the petitioner's/tenant's leave to defend application was rejected and he has been directed to vacate the tenanted premises i.e. a shop admeasuring 18 sq. yr. on the ground floor in house No.3406, Mahendra Park, Shakur Basti, Delhi-110034.

(2.) The respondent/landlord had petitioned for the eviction of the premises on the ground that she was suffering from afflictions related to high blood-pressure and severe osteoarthritis with "knee lock"; the premises were required by her for her own residential use as well as for use by her family members, which comprised her three sons with their respective families and two married daughters who used to visit her along with their respective families; the first floor of her residential accommodation above the tenanted premises comprised of two bedrooms, one drawing room, one dining room, a kitchen, one storeroom and a small pooja room; out of the two bedrooms, one was occupied by her and the other by her son Jitender; in the second floor residential accommodation which comprised two rooms, two kitchen and a storeroom, her other two married sons were using one room each along with her growing grandchildren; her married daughters used to visit her along their respective families but due to non-availability of separate rooms for them, they used to be confined and cribbed with their families in the drawing and dining rooms; and finally, that she had no other alternate suitable accommodation to meet her bonafide requirement.

(3.) The tenant sought leave to contest the petition on the ground that the landlady had sufficient accommodation for herself; her children being married were not dependent upon her; the tenanted premises was being used for running a doctor's medical clinic which was not in any way, suitable for residential use as it lacked the necessary amenities like a kitchen, toilet, window, ventilation, etc.; that earlier some shops were got vacated by the landlord but the same were not put to residential use; instead, she had removed the shutters of the shop on the left side of the tenanted shop and was using the space for car parking while the shop area was being used as a passage, and that the tenant had never had any dispute with the landlady, neither he ever misbehaved with her.