ANUPAMA DEWAN AND ORS. Vs. VINNI DUGGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/revisionist against the order dated 29.06.2015 passed by the Ld. CCJ cum Additional Rent Controller -1, Central District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi by virtue of which the Ld. ARC dismissed the petitioner's application for leave to defend and passed the order of eviction.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the respondent/landlady is the owner of the property bearing Office Flat no. 172, First Floor, Office Complex, Cycle Market, Phase -I, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi -110055 (tenanted premises). The aforesaid premises were let out to the petitioner/tenant herein during the lifetime of the predecessor in interest of the present respondent. In 2014 the respondent/landlady filed an eviction petition against the present petitioner/tenant for securing the occupation and possession of the tenanted premises. It was stated in the eviction petition that the petitioner (respondent herein) is nearly 67 years of age and is a highly qualified and experienced lady with more than 34 years of experience in teaching. It was further submitted therein that presently she is unemployed and apart from a meager pension of Rs. 1504/ - per month, has no other source of income or assistance from anywhere for meeting her day to day expenses and unforeseen medical bills and is forced to borrow from relatives and friends. In order to provide for herself the respondent/landlady has desired the possession of the tenanted premise in order to start a coaching centre for the children. In light of the aforesaid an eviction order was sought with respect to the tenanted premises on account of bonafide requirement of the respondent/landlady u/s 14(1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (the Act). Consequently, a leave to defend application was filed by the respondent/tenant (petitioner herein). Vide order dated 29.06.2015 the aforesaid leave to defend was rejected and an order of eviction was passed against the respondent/tenant (petitioner herein) with a finding that no triable issue was made out whilst the landlady has been able to establish a bonafide requirement. Aggrieved, the respondent/tenant (petitioner herein) filed the present revision petition.

(3.) IT has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant that the tenanted premises is situated in the cycle market and is not suitable for running a coaching centre. It is further averred that apart from the tenanted premises the respondent/landlady is in possession of the first floor of a residential cum commercial property bearing No. C9, Block -C, Lajpat Nagar -III, New Delhi which is being used by her for her residence. The said residential premise is built on 1800 sq feet of area and has four rooms making it a more suitable choice for running the coaching centre not only on account of availability of space but also by virtue of location in residential area.