SANTOSH KUMARI MEHRA Vs. OM PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 13th January, 2015 whereby leave to defend was granted to the respondent Om Prakash in an eviction petition filed by Smt. Santosh Kumari Mehra since deceased, the petitioners legal heirs of Smt. Santosh Kumari Mehra prefer the present petition. In the eviction petition, Santosh Kumar stated that she was owner of shop bearing No. 4515-A, Arya Samaj Road, Near Hathi Wala Chowk, Karol Bagh, New Delhi (in short "the tenanted premises") which consists of a big hall and had been let out to Om Prakash for commercial purposes initially at a rent of Rs. 480/- per month which was increased 10% by notice dated 20th April, 2013 and the present rent was Rs. 522/- per month. The eviction petitioner stated that her son Rajinder Prasad Mehra was doing the business of Surgical Goods and Equipment in the name and style of M/s. Vikas Surgical & Medical Devices as a sole proprietor and the concern was registered under the Sales Tax Act, Drug Control Department etc. Since there was no independent place of business, Rajinder Prasad was constrained to take a basement floor of property No. 8-A/30-G, situated at W.E.A. Karol Bagh, New Delhi on rent and is paying a rent of Rs. 19800/- per month. It was stated that basement was not suitable for running the said business as the basement was meant for storage of the goods and thus the tenanted premises which is a shop on the ground floor is required so that Rajinder Prasad can store the goods and entertain the customers easily. Further grandson of eviction petitioner namely Hemant Mehra was also doing the business of surgical goods and equipments in the name and style of Life Line Surgical Co. as a sole proprietor which was also registered with the concerned authorities. Hemant Mehra had no independent place of business and thus he is constrained to keep the goods in one part of the drawing room of the suit property bearing No. 4515-A, Arya Samaj Road, Near Hathi Wala Chowk, Karol Bagh, New Delhi which was also being used for residential purposes by the family of the eviction petitioner. It is stated that other son of the eviction petitioner Rajeshwar Prasad Mehra was partially disabled since birth and is completely dependent on Rajinder Prasad, elder son of the eviction petitioner for his livelihood. The tenanted premises is located in the prime location, on the front portion of the building and was suitable for business purposes.

(2.) In the leave to defend application, Om Prakash took the plea that the grandson of the eviction petitioner could not be said to be a dependent member of her family. It is stated that the son of eviction petitioner Rajinder Prasad was also carrying on business at another place i.e. 11732-A, (Basement) Street No. 3, Sat Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi which fact has been deliberately concealed. The said basement was purchased by Rajinder Prasad and thus there is no bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises. Om Prakash also stated that Rajinder Prasad was carrying on his business on the first floor of the suit property since the very inception of his business which is now being carried out by the grandson of eviction petitioner and they have sufficient accommodation on the first floor and only additional accommodation was required by the eviction petitioner. The first floor portion of the suit property where the business is being carried out by Rajinder Prasad was about 900 sq. ft. which is more than sufficient for the need of Rajinder Prasad to carry on the business. The suit property is a 3 1/2 storeyed building and entire building including first, second and third floor are in occupation of eviction petitioner wherein business is being run from the first floor whereas upper floors are being used for the residential purposes by the eviction petitioner and her family members. Further there are five members in the family of the eviction petitioner and thus four rooms on second floor and two rooms on the third floor are sufficient to meet their residential requirement and four rooms constructed on an area of 900 sq. ft. on the first floor are sufficient for business purposes.

(3.) In the reply to the leave to defend application, the eviction petitioner denied that her son was carrying on business from 11732-A, (Basement) Street No. 3, Sat Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. It was stated that the basement was taken on rent however the same had to be vacated after the owner terminated the tenancy vide notice dated 9th September, 2012 and only thereafter basement floor of property 8-A/30-G situated at W.E.A. Karol Bagh, New Delhi was taken on rent of Rs. 19800/- per month. No material fact was concealed from the Court in the eviction petition. The first floor of the suit property was not suitable for carrying on the business. Several customers and officials from big hospitals are coming to the drawing room and since the goods are lying in the drawing room, the same creates an embarrassing situation for them as surgical goods consumes substantial space in the drawing room. Even otherwise, the first floor and upper floors are residential in nature and hence cannot be used for commercial purposes. Documents in support of the contention raised in the eviction petitioner and reply to the leave to defend application including the lease deed, etc. were placed on record by the eviction petitioner.