GULSHAN RAI MONGA Vs. SANJAY MALHOTRA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 20th August, 2014 whereby the application of the petitioner for leave to contest the eviction petition under Clause (e) of Section 14(1) of DRC Act, 1958 filed by the respondents was dismissed.

(2.) Respondent No.1 is the son of late Baldev Raj Malhotra and respondents No. 2 to 6 the legal heirs of late Rajesh Malhotra son of late Baldev Raj Malhotra being the wife and four children. The petitioner is a tenant in one shop in property bearing No. HS-23, Kailash Colony Market, New Delhi owned by Baldev Raj Malhotra on whose demise the same devolved on his legal heirs. The respondents pleaded that late Baldev Raj Malhotra and his wife late Saroj Malhotra who died on 16th May, 1998 and 10th December, 1999 respectively were survived by two sons and four daughters namely late Rajesh Malhotra, Sanjay Malhotra, Neeru Kapoor, Shashi Gulati, Indu Sachdeva and Renu Arora. The four daughters relinquished their shares in the said property in favour of Rajesh Malhotra and Sanjay Malhotra where after they agreed to be owners of 45% and 55% of the said property which was to be re-constructed but the re-construction could not be done for various reasons. In the meantime Rajesh Malhotra died intestate on 16th November, 2013 leaving behind respondent No.2 his widow, and respondent No.3 to 5 his daughters and respondent No.6 his son who are all unmarried. The parties thereafter mutually decided to own the property in equal shares i.e. 50% to Sanjay Malhotra and 50% to respondent No. 2 to 6 jointly.

(3.) In the eviction petition it is claimed that the shop in question was required bonafidely by the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 for commercial purposes as Rajesh Malhotra and Sanjay Malhotra were having a small tenanted shop at Dariba Kala, Chandni Chowk and landlord's Eviction Petition No.88/2009 was pending in Tis Hazari Courts. Rajesh Malhotra and Sanjay Malhotra were carrying on business of jewellery in the said shop and the place being congested it was not possible for respondents No.2 to 6 to carry on the said business over there. Moreover, they have no experience in the business of jewellery. Respondent No. 2 to 6 have no other source of income. Respondent No.3 to 5 are unmarried grown-up daughters of respondent No.2 and respondent No.6 is the younger son aged about 22 years studying in BBA who will also eventually do business. Respondent No.3 aged 30 years has completed the course of Choreography and is running a boutique from the residence as no commercial space is available. Respondent No.4 who is 28 years old has done diploma in hospitality management especially in Patisserie and also has no commercial space to carry on the business. Similarly respondent No.5 aged 24 years has done diploma in hotel management and is also unable to do her own business and is presently working as a sales-girl in Khan Market. The wife of respondent No.1 Shivani Malhotra is a law graduate and a practicing lawyer who also needs a regular office in a commercial place. In view thereof besides the petitioner's shop the respondents also filed eviction petition against two other shop owners in the said premises wherein also orders were passed in favour of the respondents. It is stated that the first floor of the premises consisting of three rooms including drawing and dining room with a store room are in possession of respondents No.2 to 6 who are using the same for residential purposes. The second floor consisting of same number of rooms is being used by respondent No.1's family for residential purposes. The respondent No.1's family consists of himself, his wife and two daughters aged 15 and 13 years who are also school going. Both the daughters of respondent No.1 are residing at the second floor as well as ground floor. In the ground floor besides these three shops there are two rooms on the back side, two toilets and motor room with front yard which is being used for parking right from the very beginning. In terms of the compromise the family of respondent No.2 to 6 is residing on the first floor and is also occupying one room on the ground floor and two rooms on the mezzanine floor. It is further noted that the respondent No.1 has another residential premises measuring 923 sq. ft. first floor, F-38, South Extension which cannot be used for commercial purpose and respondent No.2 to 6 have no legal right qua the said property. It is thus urged that in view of the bonafide requirement of earning a regular livelihood by the respondents the premises be directed to be vacated.