VINOD KUMAR SHARMA Vs. VIJAY PAL KATHURIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 28th August, 2014 whereby leave to defend application filed by the petitioners in an eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) DRC Act by the respondent was dismissed, the petitioners prefer the present petition.

(2.) IN the eviction petition, Vijay Pal Kathuria sought eviction of the tenanted premises i.e. one shop in property bearing No.78, Baldev Park, Delhi -110051. It was stated that the petitioners are real brothers and joint tenants who were let out the tenanted premises at the monthly rent of Rs.325/ - excluding electricity charges for commercial purposes on oral tenancy. The petitioners were running the business in the name and style of M/s Sharma Sanitations. After the death of father Vijay Pal Kathuria used to receive the rent and his mother, elder brother and two sisters have already executed a general power of attorney and gift deed in his favour in respect of the suit property. Vijay Pal Kathuria was living with his wife Sunita Kathuria and two sons namely Nishant Kathuria and Ajay Kathuria aged 23 and 21 years old respectively and mother Smt. Sunita Kathuria. According to Vijay Pal Kathuria, there were three shops on the ground floor. In one shop his wife was doing business of ladies garment and under the name and style of M/s Famina and two shops were let out on tenancy one in the middle being with the petitioners. The two shops in tenancy were required to settle the two sons of Vijay Pal Kathuria as Nishant Kathuria wants to open an office of property dealing and Ajay Kathuria wants to start the business of sale -purchase of mobiles/small computer related electrical items/devices etc.

(3.) IN the leave to defend application, the petitioners took the plea that the showroom of the wife of Vijay Pal Kathuria was just an eye wash. Further there is a gali on the side of the house from where any shop can be run. Vijay Pal Kathuria was living on the first floor of the premises and there was a separate staircase for entry to the first floor. Even on the ground floor of the property, plenty of unused area facing the gali was available as alternate sufficient place. Further the elder son Nishant was looking after the sale at Kashmere Gate shop and was thus gainfully employed. Ajay Kathuria was studying somewhere. Moreover Nishant Kathuria has no experience in the property dealing and hence leave to defend be granted.