Kailash Kumari & Anr v. Shakuntla

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. FEBRUARY 02, 2018 'pp/bs'..

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 2nd February, 2018 + RC.REV. 6/2017 KAILASH KUMARI & ANR ..... Petitioners Through: Ms. Ritu Jain, Adv. Versus SHAKUNTLA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Devinder Singh Khatana and Mr. Sagar Lal, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 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 6th January, 2017, when, after some hearing, further hearing was adjourned. On 15th 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. 4. The counsel for the petitioners, during the hearing, on enquiry, stated that the petitioners do not dispute that the respondent / landlady is the owner and landlord of the shop in the tenancy of the petitioners. Thus the discussion hereafter will only be on the aspect of bona fide requirement of and availability of alternate suitable accommodation to, the respondent/ landlady. 5. The respondent / landlady instituted the petition for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, from which this Revision Petition arises, pleading (i) that the husband of the respondent / landlady was the owner and landlord of the said Shop no.7 and had let-out the same to the petitioners / tenants in January, 2001; (ii) that the husband of the respondent / landlady died on 19th October, 2007 and thereafter the respondent / landlady became the owner of the shop and the petitioners / tenants started paying monthly rent to the respondent / landlady; (iii) that the respondent / landlady has five sons namely, (a) Devender aged 30 years; (b) Joginder aged 26 years; (c) Virender aged 22 years; (d) Sumit aged 20 years; and, (e) Ajay aged 16 years; (iv) that Devender is running a Gym from a rented accommodation and Joginder is unemployed; the other sons of the respondent / landlady are studying; (v) that the respondent / landlady requires the shop in the tenancy of the petitioners for setting up a shop for her unemployed son Joginder so tha