T.R. SHARMA Vs. KAMLESH SHARMA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . Rohit Gandhi, Advocate has entered appearance on behalf of the Caveator. The caveat stands discharged.

(2.) AT the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter was heard finally.

(3.) THE respondent (landlady) had filed an eviction petition under section 14 (1) (e) read with section 25B of the Act for eviction of the tenant from the tenanted premises for her bona fide need. The ground being that after her superannuation from employment with a bank in May 2011, she wanted to start a business of ready -made garments along with her younger son Mr. Sachin Sharma. It was her case that of her 3 sons the elder one, namely Mr. Amit Sharma, was married and had two school going children. However, his salary from his employment in the private sector was insufficient for the maintenance of his family, therefore the petitioner assisted him financially. The youngest son Mr. Atul Sharma was married and had a daughter. He ran a confectionery and bakery shop from one of the shops in the aforesaid property, which according to her, had been inherited by her husband, who had since deceased. It is her second son namely Mr. Sachin Sharma with whom she wanted to start her business, since this son was a freelancer, did not have a permanent employment and would often be idle. It was further submitted that this son was unmarried and totally dependent upon the petitioner for his financial needs. The respondent/landlady had contended that because of her age, she was suffering from various ailments, the treatment of which and the support given to her elder son was a constant drain on her resources which needed to be augmented. She had submitted that by settling and doing business with her second son she would augment her finances. She further submitted that she did not have any other accommodation to start the proposed business whereas the tenant had another shop at D - 2/17, Main Rd., Model Town -3, Delhi from where he was running a business of dry -cleaning.