PRAVEEN JAIN Vs. VIMLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have assailed an order dated 11. 4. 2007 passed by learned ARC dismissing an application under Section 25 B of the Rent Control act seeking leave to defend.

(2.) THE relevant facts for purpose of deciding this petition are that the respondent, a widow aged around 79 years filed an Eviction Petition under Section 14d against the petitioners who were in occupation of second floor of property no. IX/13 (old No. 1004/4), Main Road, Kailash Nagar consisting of 7 rooms plus balconies. She submitted that she required the property for herself and her family. Earlier she was in occupation of property no. 45/9-A, Mall Road as a tenant. The landlady of that property had filed an Eviction Petition against her which she lost. She preferred a revision before this Court. She lost the revision and she had given an undertaking to the Court that she would hand over the possession of the property to her landlady by 31st December, 2005. In accordance with this undertaking given by her, she handed over the possession of tenanted premises to her landlord. That was the only residential premises available to her. She had no other suitable accommodation for her and her family's residence. Her husband, Kaviraj Harnam Das, expired on 19. 8. 1971. Her family consisted of her elder daughter Ms. Nalini alias 'baby' who was married and had one son. She along with her family was permanently residing with her. Her other daughter Ms. Anu alias Biky, unmarried, was also permanently residing with her. Her other two daughters were married and were residing in Delhi with their respective spouses and children and their families regularly used to visit her.

(3.) THE tenant/petitioners filed leave to defend taking a stand that the premises was let out for commercial purpose and was also used by the defendant for commercial purpose. The other stand taken by the tenant was that the landlord had concealed alternate accommodation available to her. It was stated that the entire ground floor and first floor of the property in question was available with the landlady and was more than sufficient for her requirement. It was further submitted that the front portion on the ground floor was being used for commercial purpose having been let out by the landlady. The landlady also let out rear portion on the ground floor after filing of the petition. The first floor of the premises was converted into commercial use by letting out for running a play school in the name of 'tender Hands'. The petitioner also submitted that the landlady was having residential accommodation available to her at first floor of property no. 1379, Chandni Chowk where she was residing. She was in possession of 4 bed rooms, one drawing-dining, apart from kitchen, WC, bath and the terrace. It was also submitted that premises in question was situated on second floor and the landlady; aged around 80 years, would find it difficult to climb the stairs. The premises was not fit for residential purpose as it was commercial premises.