SACHIN KUMAR Vs. VISHWAKARMA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 7th March, 2014 whereby his application for leave to defend in an eviction petition filed by the Respondent under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short the "the DRC Act") was dismissed.

(2.) THE Respondent filed eviction petition for eviction of the tenanted premises being a shop situated on the ground floor in the premises 1/3246A, Ram Nagar Extension, Mandoli Road, Shahdara, Delhi -32 from the Petitioner. In the eviction petition it was stated that the Respondent was the owner of the said premises which consisted of four shops on the ground floor, two rooms and a kitchen on the first floor and a barsati on the second floor. Out of the four shops on the ground floor, one shop was in possession of the Petitioner which was situated on the main road and the other two shops were in possession of the other tenants. The fourth shop was in possession of the Respondent which was being used for the residential purpose as the husband of the Respondent was 75 years old and was suffering from eye problem, various other diseases and was unable to climb the stairs. The family of the Respondent comprises of the Respondent, her husband, her three married sons (Rajesh, Rakesh and Ashok) and one married daughter. The elder son Rajesh was a government servant and was residing separately in Bhopal. The other two sons were residing with the Respondent on the first floor of the aforesaid property. Thus there was scarcity of the accommodation and the Respondent was forced to reside in the shop with her husband on the ground floor and the grandson of the Respondent namely Himanshu was residing in the Barsati on the second floor. The two sons of the Respondent residing with her were doing the business of fabrication of iron tanks from the tenanted shop situated at Khasra No. 61/1, Saboli Gaddha, Saboli Village, Delhi -93 and the said landlord was asking her sons to vacate the said tenanted premises. Thus the Respondent required the shop in question so that her sons could run their business. It is also pleaded that the elder son and the married daughter occasionally visited the Respondent with their families and at that time more space was required.

(3.) IN the leave to defend application, the Petitioner pleaded that the father of the Petitioner was owner of the shop in question by way of adverse possession since the year 1976. It is further claimed that the Respondent has no right and title in her favour in the property as she is claiming ownership of the property on the basis of General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Will and other documents which do not create any right or title in her favour. It is further stated that the site plan filed by the Respondent is not correct and the Respondent and her family have no bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises.