YASHPAL ARORA Vs. MAMTA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 20th February, 2013 whereby the leave to defend application of the Petitioner was dismissed and eviction order was passed.

(2.) IN the eviction petition the Respondent claimed eviction of the Petitioner from the shop on the ground floor measuring 9.5 ft. x 7.5 ft., i.e.71.1 sq.ft. approximately (6.60 sq. mtrs) which was given on rent at Rs.133.10 per month excluding electricity and other charges at premises bearing No. 5620, Katra Jamun, Nai Sarak of which the Respondent is a coowner/landlady. Premises bearing No.5620, Katra Jamun, Nai Sarak of which the tenanted premises, that is, 5620/3, Ground Floor was a portion contained 10 shops bearing Nos.5620/1 to 5620/10 which were in occupation and under tenancy of different tenants. The Respondent became the owner of the premises by virtue of a Registered Gift Deed in the year 2003 and was issuing rent receipts in respect of the suit premises to the tenants. The husband of the Respondent was running his business from the tenanted shop and the Respondent was residing on the third floor of the suit premises along with her family members consisting of her husband, two young sons namely Rahul Sharma aged 22 years and Kapil Sharma aged 19 years, who were unemployed and were having keen interest to run the business from the suit premises. It is claimed that on the one hand the husband of the Respondent was doing the business from the rented shop and on the other hand the children, that is, the sons who were dependent upon the Respondent were unemployed for want of space. It was further stated that the Petitioner was not using the said shop for his business and the tenanted shop was lying locked since several years as the Petitioner was running his business at IX/600, Krishna Gali No. 2, Subhash Road, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi -31 whereas Yogender Kumar was running his shop bearing No. 5620/2, Ground Floor, Katra Jamun, Nai Sarak. Even the Respondent was not doing any job or business though she was competent to run her own business from her tenanted suit shops which were more suitable being at the ground floor of the residence. Thus the family having limited source of income the Respondent wanted to support her family financially by running her own business. It was stated that the Respondent does not own or possess any other property in Delhi suitable for running their business.

(3.) IN the leave to defend application, the Petitioner claimed that the shop in question was let out by Mahavir Prasad to Yogender Kumar and Yashpal carrying on the business in the name of M/s B.D. and Company. Yogender Kumar left the firm and Yashpal took over the assets and liabilities of the said firm and thus became the proprietor of the Firm and single tenant in respect of shop No.3620/2, Katra Jamun, Nai Sarak, Delhi. The shop in question was being used actually for commercial purpose and Yashpal was carrying on the business under the name and style of M/s Bombay Velvet Trading Company being its proprietor after dissolution of M/s B.D. and Company. The Respondent had been receiving rent in respect of the shop in question from Yashpal. Though the Petitioner was regular in sending the rent however, the Respondent stopped accepting the same with mala fide intention. It is alleged that the Respondent got executed the alleged gift deed in her favour to get the shop in question vacated. The rate of rent was also challenged stating that the rent receipt filed by the Respondent showed rate of rent @Rs.121/ -. The Respondent has deliberately concealed the actual accommodation available with her and the factum of sale of commercial property bearing No.4292, Gali Bhairon Wali, Nai Sarak, Jogiwara, Delhi which was executed in the month of November, 2011. It is further claimed that though bona fide requirement of the tenanted shop as stated by the Respondent is that her sons Rahul and Kapil were allegedly unemployed however, as per the Gift Deed the son of the Respondent, Rahul Sharma was having one shop bearing No.5620/7. The said son of the Respondent has been shown as tenant in respect of one shop allegedly gifted to Respondent by said Mahavir Prasad. It is further stated that shop No.5620/8 is occupied by Devender Kumar as tenant, who is the husband of the co -landlady. The husband of the Respondent is carrying on flourishing business of cloth merchant and the sons of the Respondent were working with him. It is further stated that the husband of the Respondent is not carrying on his business from any tenanted premises.