- (1.)This revision petition u/S 25 B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short "the Act"), impugns the order dated 14.03.2012 passed by the Ld. ACJ-cum- RC (central/Delhi) whereby leave to defend application filed by the petitioner, in the eviction petition, was dismissed.
(2.)The eviction petition was filed by the respondent in respect of two rooms/office measuring 10.0' x 11.3' and 12.6' x 8' and open court yard on the first floor and one room of 14' x 11.3' on the second floor with open terrace, along with staircase leading from ground floor to the upper floor, latrine bathroom on the first floor, forming part of the property bearing No. 3667, Ward VI, Chawri Bazar, Delhi-110006 (hereinafter referred to as the "suit premises"). In this petition it was stated that the suit premises was first acquired by late Sh. Shree Ram vide a registered sale deed. On his death, his wife, Smt. Premwati became the owner of the said property and executed a will during her lifetime in favour of her daughter-in-law, Smt. Sandhaya Gupta (mother-in-law of the respondent). Smt. Sandhaya Gupta thereafter executed a will in favour of the respondent and another daughter-inlaw namely Vandana Gupta. After her death, Vandana Gupta and the respondent became the absolute owners of the property. On 21.10.2010, Vandana Gupta executed a relinquishment deed which was registered before the Sub-Registrar and through this deed, she relinquished all her rights, title and interest in respect of the suit premises, as a result of which, the respondent became the absolute owner. The petitioner's father, Om Prakash was the original tenant in respect of the suit premises. The mother-in-law of the respondent, Smt. Sandhaya Gupta filed a petition u/S 14(1) (c), (d), (e), (h) and (j) of the Act against the father of the petitioner and after his demise in 1996, the petitioner along with other legal heirs of the deceased Om Prakash were substituted as respondents in the eviction petition, however only the petitioner appeared and contested the said petition. The petitioner came in possession of the suit premises after the death of his father in 1996. It is an admitted fact that it is the petitioner alone who is running the business run by Om Prakash, is the tenant in respect of the suit premises.
(3.)The respondent filed an eviction petition on 23.12.2011 on the ground that the suit premises are required for the bonafide need of her and the members of her family. The family of the respondent consists of her husband and two sons namely Aditya Gupta and Anubhav Gupta. The elder son, Aditya Gupta completed his M. B. A and the second son has also completed his B. B. A. The elder son has recently got married. Both the sons wish to start their own businesses, but due to paucity of space, they have no choice but to assist their father in running of the business on the ground floor of the suit premises. The wife of the elder son who is a qualified lady also wishes to start her own business. The shop in possession of the respondent on the ground floor of the suit premises is very small for four members of the family to run their independent businesses. It is stated that the husband of the respondent has five employees at present and they are made to sit on the road due to shortage of space. Even display of items could not be done in the premises and the same had to be done on the road, which led to public inconvenience and on more occasions than one, the police had issued challans against the respondent. The respondent also stated the suit premises to be required for setting up a proper office, where she and other members of the family could sit and maintain the business/office. Lastly, the respondents stated that essential facilities like pantry, latrine, and toilet are available only on the upper floors.