DEEPAK Vs. MAYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No. 2367/2015 (Exemption)

(2.) IN the eviction petition the Respondents pleaded that a shop measuring 10ft x 7.6 ft on the ground floor in Premises No. 1656, Gali No.119, Shanti Nagar, Tri Nagar, Delhi -110035 was let out to Mahender Nath, father of the Petitioners at a monthly rent of Rs. 1,200/ - per month since the year 1990 for non -residential purposes by the erstwhile owner. The Respondents became the owners on the basis of the Will executed by the erstwhile owner. In 1993 the father of the Petitioners died and thus the Petitioners started their own business in the name and style of M/s Pradeep Seat Cover. The Respondents stated that Maya Devi was an old lady and residing in a room at the ground floor of the suit property. Smt. Sunita Devi and Usha Devi, the widow and the daughter of the deceased son of Respondent No.1 were residing in a room on the first floor of the suit premises. Smt. Beena and Smt. Prem Lata married daughters of Respondent No.1 also visit the suit property occasionally and stay with Respondent No.1. One room on the first floor was in possession of the other tenant Shri Kailash who was residing there.

(3.) IN the leave to defend application filed by the Petitioners it was stated that the Respondents have sufficient accommodation to meet their requirements. No Will was executed in favour of the Respondents by the erstwhile owner late Ram Kishan and all the legal heirs of late Ram Kishan have not been joined as parties. The widow and daughter of the deceased son of Respondent No. 1 were not residing in a room on the first floor. Further the daughters of the Respondent No. 1 also did not visit and stay in the suit property. It was denied that any of the rooms on the first floor was on tenancy. Thus the main contention of the Petitioners was that there was no bona fide requirement of the Respondents. In the leave to defend no plea was taken that the Respondents have any alternative accommodation available except the house at Uttam Nagar wherein Respondent No.3 is living with his family which the Respondents mentioned in the eviction petition.