KAILASH KUMARI & ANR Vs. SHAKUNTLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rent Control Revision Petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 impugns the judgment [dated 16th July, 2016 in E.No.15/12 (Unique Case ID No.02406C0031342012) of the Court of Rent Controller (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi] dismissing the application of the two petitioners for leave to defend the petition for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act filed by the sole respondent and the consequent order of eviction of the petitioners from Shop No.7 on ground floor of property no.67, Village Garhi, Main Market, East of Kailash, New Delhi as shown in red colour in the site plan filed with the petition for eviction.

(2.) This petition came up first before this Court on 6 th January, 2017, when, after some hearing, further hearing was adjourned. On 15 th February, 2017, on the contention of the counsel for the petitioners / tenants that in the property in question i.e. property no.67, Main Market, Village Garhi, East of Kailash, New Delhi, the respondent / landlady has 13 shops out of which shops no.4,5,6&13 are available with the respondent / landlady and her sons are carrying on business therefrom and that the respondent / landlady though in the reply to the application for leave to defend has denied the said plea in the leave to defend application of the petitioners / tenants and stated that the said four shops are tenanted but had not placed anything on record to show the said four shops to be tenanted, notice of the petition was ordered to be issued and the execution of the order of eviction stayed. On 26th October, 2017, when the petition listed, the counsel for the petitioners / tenants sought adjournment. Observing that the petitioners / tenants, after obtaining interim order could not seek adjournments, interim order was vacated subject to the final outcome of the petition. The counsel for the petitioners / tenants then stated that she will argue the matter and the counsels were heard. During the hearing it was noticed that there was some discrepancy as to the documents filed with the leave to defend application. Accordingly, the Trial Court records were ordered to be requisitioned and orders in the petition reserved.

(3.) The Trial Court record has been received and has been perused.