RAMPAT Vs. GANGA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 27th April, 2013 declining to grant leave to defend to the petitioner in an eviction petition filed by the respondent under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short the DRC Act) the petitioner prefers the present petition.

(2.) In the eviction petition, the respondent pleaded that the respondent was the owner of premises No.79 (Village Bhadola) Delhi wherein 7 shops had been carved out on the ground floor bearing Shop Nos. T-9/1 to T-9/7. The tenanted shop is shop in the said property which was let out to the petitioner vide rent agreement dated 11th July, 1997 on a monthly rent of Rs. 2000/- excluding house-tax, electricity and water charges. The said tenanted shop was let out for commercial purposes. Now the respondent wants to start her own business of fruits and vegetables as the biggest fruits and vegetable market of Delhi was situated near the tenanted shop. It is further contended that the respondent has other shops also which have been let out, however the monthly income from the said shop was not sufficient to fulfill the basic needs of the respondent hence the shop was required for a bona-fide purpose.

(3.) Petitioner being served with summons under Schedule 3 of the DRC Act filed the leave to defend within the prescribed period. In the leave to defend it was stated that the respondent was harassing the petitioner to enhance the rent to Rs. 6000/- per month and was also demanding unlawful pagdi of 'One lakh. Initially the rent of tenanted shop was Rs. 500/- per month where after the petitioner filed a civil suit against the respondent in which a compromise was arrived at and the rent was enhanced to Rs. 2000/- per month. Now the respondent has again started harassing the petitioner for increase of rent to Rs. 6000/- per month. The petitioner contended that respondent owns 7 shops in the building No.T-9 on the ground floor. Shop No.T-9/1 was the tenanted premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 2000/- whereas shop No.T-9/2, T- 9/4 and T-9/5 were in possession of Ram Parvesh, Mukesh Sahu and Ashok Sahu at the monthly rent of Rs. 2500/-. Shop No.T-9/3 was lying locked and was in the possession of the respondent and shops No.T-9/6 and T-9/7 were in possession of Papple @ Uma Shankar at the monthly rent of Rs. 5500/-. Thus shop No.T-9/3 is lying vacant under the lock and key of the respondent and she could sell fruits and vegetables from the said shop. It is further stated that the respondent being 70 years old was not capable of starting business of selling fruits and vegetables and she was earning a sum of Rs. 63,000/- per month as rental income from her properties.