VIJAY GANDHI Vs. VEENA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No.935/2015 (Exemption) in RC.Rev.33/2015

(2.) THE respondent filed two eviction petitions against the petitioners herein stating that she was the owner of property bearing No.WZ -147, Gali No.2, Sri Nagar, Shakurbasti, New Delhi (in short 'suit property) on the basis of title documents and subsequent decree of the Court dated 7th April, 2013. Shop Nos. 1 and 2 in the suit property were let out to the petitioners herein respectively and are in occupation of the respondents in the capacity of tenant since 1982 on a monthly rent of Rs. 750/ - and Rs. 650/ - respectively. The respondent has not been receiving rent from the petitioners since 1996. In the suit property, there are three shops including the tenanted premises. The respondent requires all three shops to start the shop for her son namely Ajay, who is 22 years of age and is unemployed and her husband, who is working in a private firm, is going to leave his job due to ill health. Thus, the respondent wants to start her own shop/showroom by combining all the three shops for her son and husband and no other alternate accommodation was available with her except the tenanted premises.

(3.) IN the leave to defend applications filed by the petitioners, common grounds were taken i.e. there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, they are not in occupation of tenanted premises in the capacity of tenant of the respondent herein, they are the tenants of Shri Ram Harak S/o Late Gayadin, there is a dispute of ownership between the respondent herein and Smt. Kiran and the same is pending before Delhi High Court, no written agreement of tenancy is available with the respondent herein, the judgment of the civil Court in Suit No.798/2000 does not decide the title of the suit property nor the relationship of landlord and tenant, the husband of the respondent herein is working in Indian Oil Limited and 5 years are left for his retirement, the son of the respondent herein namely Ajay is also working in a call centre in Gurgaon, Haryana, the respondent herein has not specifically stated as to for what purpose all three shops situated in the suit property were required and what business was to be carried on, the shops are situated on a very narrow road of approximately 20 feet width and thus no showroom can be opened. Since triable issues were raised, leave to defend be granted.