MADAN GOPAL SINGH Vs. SWARN LATA ABROL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been preferred under Section 25b of the Delhi Rent control Act, 1958 (the Act) to impugn the order passed by the learned Additional rent Controller, Delhi in E-419/2006 filed by the respondent-landlady under section 14 (D) of the Act, whereby the learned Additional Rent Controller has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner tenant seeking leave to defend the eviction petition and has proceeded to pass an eviction order against the petitioner.

(2.) THE tenanted premises in question is situated on the rear side of the ground floor of property No. M-27-C Market, Greater Kailash, New Delhi. The admitted position is that the upper floors and the rear side of the ground floor of the said property have the sanctioned user as residential, while the front portion on the ground floor has sanctioned user as commercial. The respondent, along with her married son and his family are residing on the upper floors. The tenanted premises in question admeasuring 22'x 7' is situated, as aforesaid, on the rear side of the ground floor portion. Adjoining to the said tenanted premises, there is another portion which is about 22'x 5. 7'. This adjoining portion is admittedly lying vacant and is in possession of the respondent. The tenanted premises in question was let out by the late husband of the respondent to the petitioner for commercial purposes. Admittedly, the landlord passed away on 8. 12. 2001 leaving behind his widow, i. e. , the respondent, one son and two daughters. The respondent filed the aforesaid eviction petition in the year 2005 at the age of 72 years. It is also the admitted position that she is suffering from breast cancer and arthritis in her lower limbs, which makes it difficult for her to climb the upper floors, and her case was that she requires the premises in question to be able to use the ground floor portion for her residence. On issuance of notice the petitioner filed his application seeking leave to defend and, as aforesaid, the same has been dismissed by the impugned order.

(3.) THE order has been assailed before me and it is contended by the petitioner that the leave to defend ought to have been granted, since the petitioner tenant had raised various triable issues. It is firstly contended by the petitioner that there is no kitchen, no toilet or window in the suit premises and it is incapable of being used for residential purpose. This argument has been met by the respondent by submitting that, admittedly, the respondent is in possession of the adjoining portion and in conjunction with the said portion it is possible for the respondent to use the tenanted premises for her residence and provide the toilet, kitchen/pantry and window.