RAKESH NANDA Vs. RENU GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner concededly is a tenant in occupation of the premises described as one shop at ground floor bearing shop no.3875, Roshanara Road, Delhi-110 007 in terms of the tenancy created by late Sh. Krishan Avtar Gupta, the original owner, during his lifetime. The respondent indisputably is the daughter of the said late Sh. Krishan Avtar Gupta, she being an ordinary resident of Sohna in District Gurgaon, Haryana. The respondent had filed eviction case (E499/2013) against the petitioner on the ground of bonafide need under Section 14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Having regard to the grounds on which the eviction was sought, the Additional Rent Controller applied the special procedure envisaged in Section 25 B of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The petitioner, in response, moved an application for leave to defend. He also filed an application for rejection of the petition on the ground the respondent had concealed material facts. The second said application was dismissed by order dated 08.10.2015 and is subject matter of challenge by CM (M) 118/2016. The application for leave to contest was dismissed by a separate order of the same date (08.10.2015). Resultantly, by the same order, the Additional Rent Controller granted an order of eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 in favour of the respondent, which order is under challenge by RC Rev. 104/2016.

(2.) Both petitions having arisen out of the same proceedings before the Rent Controller, and they having a bearing on each other, have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment.

(3.) The prime contention of the respondent was that she had acquired the right, title and interest in the subject property in terms of the partition of the estate left behind by her father, late Sh. Krishan Avtar Gupta, the suit premises having fallen to her share under the mutual settlement between the different legal heirs, the other legal heirs having relinquished their respective shares in such premises in her favour by relinquishment deed executed and registered on 16.11.2011. It has been her case that her son is grown up and her husband has been earning as a small collection agent of Syndicate Bank without any permanent or regular job. She indicated that she required the subject premises for business by herself and by members of her family dependent on her, she not having any alternative business premises available.