SETH SITA RAM Vs. SARITA AGGARWAL & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is against the impugned order dated 15.10.2018 passed by the learned Pilot Court, CCJ cum ARC (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Eviction Petition No. 888/2017. The eviction petition was filed by the respondent herein against the petitioner in respect of first and second floor of premises No.394 out of Property No.392-395, Hauz Qazi, Delhi-110006. The basis of filing the petition is stated in para 18 of the eviction petition as under:

(2.) The respondent has filed an application for leave to defend before the learned Trial Court wherein he has alleged Mr.Kishore Kumar the brother of the respondent herein is a moneyed man and has invested money in numerous properties in his name and in the name of his sons and other family members and he has sufficient accommodation and that he and his family is living in flat bearing No.42-A, MIG, DDA flats, Motia Khan, Delhi-110055, purchased by Mr.Kishore Kumar for his sons for the purpose of investment and they does not intend the respondent to vacate the accommodation where she is residing with her son. It was also argued the petition does not clarify as to which of the son(s) of Mr.Kishore Kumar shall shift in the portion occupied by the respondent herein.

(3.) It was also argued the suit premises is commercial in nature and is being used by the petitioner herein for office purposes and it has no kitchen in it and same is not suitable for residential purposes. Further it is averred the respondent has already given a notice dated 15.06.2017 to her tenant in the premises bearing No.9-C, MIG flat, DDA, Paharganj, New Delhi asking him to vacate the said premises and as the said property is located in the same vicinity where the respondent is presently residing, hence the need for getting the premises vacated from the petitioner is not bonafide. It was urged the intention to get the premises vacated is only to get higher rentals, viz more than Rs.11,000.00 per month.