CHAMAN LAL KEWAL KRISHAN Vs. KANTA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 15th November, 2014 whereby leave to defend application of the petitioners in an eviction petition filed by the respondent under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short the DRC Act) was dismissed, the petitioners prefer the present petition.

(2.) SMT . Kanta Devi the respondent herein filed an eviction petition against the petitioners seeking eviction from the premises i.e. a shop measuring 26 feet x 7 feet approximately bearing No. 4451, Daiwara, Nai Sarak, Delhi -110006 on the ground of bonafide requirement. It was stated that Smt. Kanta Devi was the sole and exclusive owner of the tenanted premises which was originally purchased by Putli Devi vide registered sale deed dated 16th June, 1972. Smt. Putli Devi bequeathed the property to her son Kailash Chand by Will dated 7th January, 1991 and on the death of Kailash Chand, Kanta Devi being the wife of Kailash Chand succeeded as Class -I legal heir to the property. The children of Kanta Devi and Kailash Chand executed a relinquishment deed in her favour which was duly registered. The tenancy was in the name of Chaman Lal Kewal Kishan from the time of Smt. Putli Devi. However, Kewal Kishan alone was paying rent in the name of Chaman Lal Kewal Kishan under his signatures/initials. No person in the name of Chaman Lal ever paid the rent. It was stated that the tenanted premises was required for running business by Kanta Devi and her sons who were dependent on her in order to earn and meet the family requirements. Kanta Devi's family comprised of herself, two married sons with their wives and six grand -children and three married daughters who were financially dependent on her. It was stated that her elder son Pawan Kumar Gupta was doing the business of boxes and tins from the residence itself and earning a meager amount of Rs. 14,500/ - per month. The younger son Sanjay Gupta was doing the retail trade of perfume from residence and earning Rs. 15,400/ - per month. Both daughter -in -laws were housewives and not engaged in earning activity. Thus the income of the Kanta Devi and her sons was insufficient to meet the growing demand of the family. Since the tenanted premises was on the ground floor the same was suitable for commercial activity and that Kanta Devi had no other alternative suitable commercial accommodation.

(3.) PURSUANT to summons being served leave to defend application was filed by the petitioners. It was stated that Putli Devi sold one shop bearing No. 4449, Nai Sarak in 1990 and another shop bearing No. 4450 situated on the ground floor was sold by petitioner's husband in the year 2003. Thus there was no requirement to carry out the business from the ground floor premises. It was stated that Putli Devi and her husband were having number of properties in Naya Bans, Khari Baoli, Daiwara and Nai Sarak which have been bequeathed to her legal heirs which have not been disclosed in the eviction petition. The respondent is also having a tenant on the first floor of property bearing No. 4451, Nai Sarak which premises can also be used for commercial activity since it is in the area of Nai Sarak and has commercial value. The husband of Kanta Devi and her sons continue to carry on business from premises bearing No. 1213, Gali Samosa, Farash Bazar and have sufficient space and accommodation for the same. The sons of respondent are independent having separate kitchen and the daughters are also happily married and well -settled in their life.