MANAK SINGH & SONS Vs. TARA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Cm No. 36741/2016 (exemption)

(2.) The respondent (landlord) filed the eviction petition seeking eviction of the petitioner from the property being one shop on the ground floor of House No. 2967, Gali No. 40, Beadonpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The property in question was let out vide Rent Agreement dated 02.04.1991. The property was owned by Sh. Prabhu Dayal. He died on 17.02.2006 while his only son Sh. Fateh Singh and his wife had already pre-deceased him. All the relevant surviving legal heirs of Late Sh. Prabhu Dayal executed relinquishment deed dated 14.08.2006 in favour of the respondent. Accordingly, the respondent is the exclusive owner of the property. The ground floor shop/room is in possession of the petitioner. The respondent and her son are living in one room on the first floor measuring 8'9" x 8'10" and one small kitchen. It is averred that after the death of the husband of the respondent, she brought up her three children. In order to make both ends meet, the respondent had no option but to let out the second and third floor of the property which are still occupied by the tenants. She has two married daughters and one son who is of marriageable age. The respondent is said to be suffering from several old age ailments and has been advised not to climb stairs. Further, the height of the each stairs is more than normal because of the small size of the property. Hence, the respondent finds it difficult to climb to the first floor. She is suffering from heart problem i.e. Dialated R/A and R/V with severe TR with mild PAH and suffers from breathlessness while climbing stairs. It is further urged that the original tenant was Sh.Manak Singh who has already expired and after his death, the suit property has been lying locked for five years and none of the legal heirs is even tendering rent to the respondent. Even the electricity connection was disconnected by BSES on 02.04.2009 for non-payment of electricity bills by the petitioner. Hence, it is urged that the respondent requires the ground floor for her son as he needs a separate room being of marriageable age. The daughters of the respondent also frequently visit her and the respondent requires a separate space for them also.

(3.) The ARC by the impugned order noted the two defences raised by the petitioner in the application for leave to defend. Firstly, that the respondent has not impleaded the two other legal heirs of Late Sh. Manak Singh, the original tenant, namely, Billo Singh Talwar and Neelam Bhola and secondly, that though the respondent claims insufficiency of accommodation, she has let out the second floor recently i.e. six months ago at an exorbitant rent. The impugned order rejected the said two contentions.