MANJU DEVI Vs. PARTAP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the judgment dated 24th September, 2014 whereby the eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B(4) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short the DRC Act) was dismissed, the petitioner prefers the present petition.

(2.) In the eviction petition, the petitioner claimed that the suit property being 48/29, Anand Parbat, multi-storied building was purchased by the petitioner vide sale deed dated 3rd March, 2008. At the time of the purchase of the property the respondent was a tenant in respect of a shop on the ground floor which had been let out by the erstwhile owner @ Rs. 200/- per month. After the petitioner purchased the property, the respondent started paying the rent to the petitioner. Eviction of the respondent from the tenanted premises i.e. a shop measuring 6 feet 5 inches x 9 feet 8 inches was sought as the step son of the petitioner Vivek Kumar, who was aged 21 years and had passed 12th standard and was unemployed, wanted to run a provisional store. The petitioner had no issue from the wedlock. The petitioner further stated that the respondent had unauthorizedly and illegally constructed a tin-shed in front of the shop on public passage and the room adjacent to the shop in question had been let out to a tenant in order to get some additional income in the form of rent as it was difficult to run the house with the meager salary of the husband of the petitioner. The first floor and upper-ground floor of the suit property was used for the residential purposes by the petitioner, her husband and the son. Further the father-inlaw of the petitioner also used to often visit his son and live in the premises besides sister-in-law. It was further stated that on the second there is only one room, bathroom and kitchen which were also under the tenancy for the residential purposes. Thus, the petitioner had no other alternative accommodation for setting up the shop of the son and he was financially dependent on the petitioner and her husband for the purpose of accommodation. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a decision of this Court in Shri Dina Nath (Now deceased) Through His Legal Heirs Vs. Shri Manohar Lal Kapoor RC.REV.300/2012 decided on 7th November, 2014.

(3.) On the leave to defend application being allowed written statement was filed by the respondent wherein the respondent took the plea that the petitioner has various properties in Delhi i.e. property bearing No.717-B/17- G, Faridpuri, Anand Parbat which comprises of a big hall on the ground floor, one room, kitchen, bathroom, latrine at the first floor and another residential-cum-commercial house in Sagarpur, New Delhi. It was stated that tenanted shop was in occupation of the respondent before the petitioner purchased the property since 1970. Further the petitioner has another shop in the above said property at ground floor adjoining the shop of the respondent which has been let out to a tenant @ Rs. 400/- per month and Shri Niranjan is doing the business from the said shop. The petitioner has wrongly shown this shop which is under the tenancy of shri Niranjan as a room on the ground floor in the site plan. It was stated that the second floor was in use and occupation of the petitioner where she is residing with her family members and first floor and third floor portions have been let out to tenants. Thus, the petitioner has concealed real and true facts from the Court. It was further stated that Vivek Kumar was the step son of the petitioner and was living with his maternal grand-parents in village Madipur, New Delhi, attending school at Madipur and that he has not been living with the petitioner nor is he a member of the petitioner's family. The petitioner has filed false documents and the shop was not required for the alleged bonafide need.