AMRIT KAUR Vs. RATTAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Amrit Kaur filed an eviction petition against Rattan Lal under Section 14(1)(e) and 14(d) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short the DRC Act) which was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 16th May, 2013 after the parties led their evidence.

(2.) IN the eviction petition Amrit Kaur stated that she was the owner of premises X/1225, Satsang Marg, Rajgarh Colony, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi and around 35 years ago the respondent Rattan Lal was inducted as a tenant in one big shop having two shutters, who has been carrying on the business of manufacturing speaker and columns by using two horsepower electric motor for running a big cutter for cutting wooden ply and other hardwood from the tenanted premises. The rent of the tenanted premises was initially Rs. 450/ - per month excluding electricity charges and in January 2005 the same was enhanced to Rs. 2450/ -. Amrit Kaur has four shops of which two shops have been given by her to her two sons who are running their respective business in the two shops and the other two shops which have been combined into one big shop with two shutters are in use and occupation of Rattan Lal. After September 2005 Rattan Lal stopped paying the rent illegally and is creating nuisance in the said shop. The other two sons of Amrit Kaur i.e. Yashpal Singh and Harpal Singh are jobless and thus the tenanted premises is required to settle these two sons of the petitioner. Averments with regard to non -payment of rent and electricity charges were also made which was not material for the decision of the present petition.

(3.) IN the written statement Rattan Lal denied the bonafide requirement of Amrit Kaur or that he was creating nuisance. It was stated that Harpal Singh owns another shop in the vicinity in premises X/969 which he had let out on rent @ Rs. 8000/ - per month to ED -Tech Tutorials. Thus there was no bonafide requirement of Amrit Kaur to get the tenanted premises vacated.