MANJIT SINGH Vs. VANI JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 26th April, 2013 whereby leave to defend application filed by the petitioner in an eviction petition filed by the respondent under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short the DRC Act) was dismissed, the petitioner prefers the present petition. During the course of proceedings on 4th September, 2014 learned counsel for the respondent stated that the possession of the tenanted premises has already been taken in execution of the impugned judgment and decree dated 26th April, 2013.

(2.) IN the eviction petition the respondent claims herself to be the owner and landlady of shop No. B -2 (basement floor) in property No. 16 -A/19, WEA, Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi. It was stated that the tenanted premises were let out to the respondent by her father Shri Trilok Chand Jain on behalf of his two minor sons Vipual Chander Jain and Atul Chander Jain by way of a lease deed dated 15th September, 1977 for a period of three years. The tenanted premises was let out for commercial purposes and the present rate of rent was Rs. 2100/ - per month excluding all other charges. The respondent became owner of the tenanted premises with effect from 17th April, 1986 by way of a memorandum of gift executed by her brothers and the petitioner herein attorned in favour of the respondent and started paying rent by account payee cheques. The respondent stated that the tenanted premises was required bonafidely by the respondent for herself and for her son Anshul Jain aged 21 years who was a final year student in Delhi University and on completion of graduation was to start a saree business from the tenanted premises which was located in a commercial market known for saree business. The husband of the respondent has his own independent business of Plastic Daana under the name and style of M/s. P.P. Polymers at Kundli, Haryana. It was further stated that besides the tenanted premises, the respondent also owns a portion of basement in property No. F - 3/16, Gay House, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, however the said area was not suitable for the respondent to start saree business as the same is known for publishing business and moreover the said premises is already on rent.

(3.) IN the leave to defend application, the petitioner pleaded that father of respondent Trilok Chand Jain was not the registered owner of the premises and a false memorandum of gift had been executed in favour of the respondent by her brothers on 17th April, 1986. Further as per the own showing of the respondent, she was owner of a portion of basement in property No.F -3/16, Gay House, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj. Thus, an alternative more suitable commercial accommodation was available to her. The respondent being a house -wife had never done any business, lest saree business and that requirement of the son starting the business in future after graduation is unfounded and uncalled for.